Lelei & 2 others (All Suing on Their Own Behalf and as Officials of St. Monica Women Group) v Mutai & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E010 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3888 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court let applicants withdraw two interim applications, froze the situation by leaving respondents in possession, and deferred costs until the main suit ends.
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- 1.Whether the applicants' two applications could be withdrawn to allow hearing of the main suit
- 2.Whether an interim status quo order should issue over the suit parcels pending determination of the suit
- 3.How costs of the withdrawn applications should be apportioned
Key legal issues
#Withdrawal of interlocutory applications
An applicant may withdraw pending applications to secure timely hearing of the main suit
Counsel for the applicants sought abandonment of the two motions to allow the main suit to proceed without delay; counsel for the respondents did not oppose. The court accepted the withdrawal as consistent with the constitutional command that justice shall not be delayed, citing Article 159(2)(b).
Interim status quo order
The respondents were to remain in possession of the suit parcels pending the outcome of the suit
The court found no dispute that the prevailing position was respondents' possession of the two parcels. Because status quo orders preserve disputed property pending determination, and the court enjoys preservation-order powers under section 13(7) of the ELC Act, an interim status quo order maintaining respondents in possession was merited.
Costs of withdrawn applications
Costs were granted 'in the cause' rather than to any party immediately
Respondents, having responded to both applications, sought costs under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act. Applicants suggested costs be shared. Applying the proviso to section 27(1) and the Supreme Court's affirmation of judicial discretion in Rai v Rai, the court reserved costs in the cause rather than awarding them forthwith.
Legal principles established
#- Status quo orders are meant to preserve property in dispute pending the outcome of a case
- The Environment and Land Court may grant interim preservation orders including status quo under section 13(7) of the ELC Act
- Costs follow the discretion of the court under the proviso to section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Court orders
#- 1.The applicants' applications dated 30th October 2024 and 17th February 2025 marked as withdrawn with costs in the cause
- 2.The respondents to remain in possession of the two suit parcels of land pending the outcome of this suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restoring applicants to possession of 0.1 acres (1st application)
Sought in an application later withdrawn; the court instead recorded that the prevailing status quo is respondents' possession
Citation of respondents for contempt of court and committal to civil jail (2nd application)
Application withdrawn by the applicants to allow expeditious hearing of the main suit
Costs
Costs in the cause
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 applicants' applications dated 30th October 2024 and 17th February 2025, be and are hereby marked as withdrawn with costs in the cause.
The respondents to remain in possession of the two suit parcels of land pending the outcome of this suit.
It is trite law that status quo is meant to meant to preserve the property in dispute pending the outcome or termination of a case
Issues in the judgment
#Typographical error in the text on the purpose of status quo
Inconsistent reference to the Environment and Land Court Act year
Ruling is interlocutory but styled as a judgment; the case number and title of the main suit are not stated
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lelei & 2 others (All Suing on Their Own Behalf and as Officials of St. Monica Women Group) v Mutai & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E010 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3888 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3888/eng@2025-05-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.