Kolum v Mzee & 4 others (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3708 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Kapsabet Environment and Land Court paused a land appeal until an Eldoret succession case decides who rightfully owns the disputed property.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the appellant has proved the conditions set for grant of an order of injunction in the 1st application
- 2.Whether the 2nd application has met the prerequisites for grant of an order of stay of proceedings of the instant appeal pending the hearing and determination of Eldoret High Court Succession Cause No. 286 of 1997
- 3.Who should bear the costs herein
Key legal issues
#Whether the appellant met the Giella threshold for an interlocutory injunction/status quo order
The court found the prima facie case and irreparable loss limbs satisfied, holding that a preservation order was merited under Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, but deferred to the determination of the stay application
The memorandum of appeal raised triable issues, and the appellant showed he is the registered proprietor of the suit land likely to suffer irreparable loss without preservation. The court noted an injunction is an equitable and discretionary remedy under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and that a status quo order preserves property pending the outcome of the case. However, it held it necessary first to address the respondents' application for stay of proceedings before issuing any preservation order.
Whether proceedings in the appeal should be stayed pending Eldoret High Court Succession Cause No. 286 of 1997
Yes - the stay was merited because the ownership of the suit land is in dispute in the succession cause and there is a risk of conflicting decisions
It was common ground that the succession cause involves ownership of the same suit land. Although stay of proceedings is a grave and stringent remedy impinging on access to justice and fair trial, the court was persuaded that hearing the appeal could prejudice the succession proceedings, in which the applicants seek revocation of a grant, and that conflicting decisions could issue from the High Court and this Court.
Costs of the two applications
The 1st application was disallowed with costs to the respondent; the 2nd application was allowed
The court disposed of both applications together, allowing the stay sought by the 1st to 3rd respondents and dismissing the appellant's injunction application with costs to the respondent, without a separate costs order on the allowed 2nd application.
Legal principles established
#- Stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action that seriously interferes with a litigant's right to conduct litigation, and the test for it is high and stringent
- A status quo order is meant to preserve the property in question pending the outcome or termination of the case, and is envisaged under Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
- Where the ownership of the suit land is in dispute in a pending succession cause, an appeal concerning that land may be stayed to avoid conflicting decisions
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st application (Notice of Motion dated 4th November 2024) be and is hereby disallowed with costs to the respondent
- 2.The 2nd application (Notice of Motion dated 3rd February 2025) is allowed in terms of stay of these proceedings pending the hearing and determination of Eldoret High Court Succession Cause No. 286 of 1997
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Kapsabet Chief Magistrate's Court (Environment and Land)
- E002 of 2021
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 3 and 63(c) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 40 Rules 1, 3 and 4 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011; Article 159(2)(b) and Article 50(1) of the Constitution of Kenya
Relief refused
#Order of injunction/status quo restraining interference with Nandi/Petty Cheptil/6 pending appeal
Although the appellant established a prima facie case and potential irreparable loss, the court found the 2nd application for stay of proceedings merited and therefore declined to issue the preservation order
Costs
The 1st application was disallowed with costs to the respondent; no costs order was made on the 2nd application, which was allowed.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
The 1st application instituted by way of a Notice of motion dated 4th November 2024, be and is hereby disallowed with costs to the respondent.
The 2nd application instituted by way of a Notice of motion dated 3rd February 2025, is hereby allowed in terms of stay of these proceedings as stated in paragraph 8 (b) hereinabove.
Stay of proceedings is a grave judicial action which seriously interferes with the right of a litigant to conduct his litigation.
It is trite law that status quo order is meant to preserve the property in question pending the outcome or termination of the case
These are the three pillars on which rests the foundation of any order of injunction interlocutory or permanent.
The appellant has also shown that he is the registered proprietor of the suit land and is likely to sufier irreparable loss, if an order for preservation of the same does not issue herein.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to 'Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court, 2015 (2011)' - an apparently erroneous citation of the statute's year and name
The coram lists only the appellant and counsel for the 5th and 6th respondents as present, although the applications concerned the 1st to 3rd respondents and their counsel filed submissions
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kolum v Mzee & 4 others (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3708 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kapsabet Environment and Land Court Appeal (Memorandum of Appeal dated 22nd August 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3708/eng@2025-05-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.