Mitei v Kosgei (Environment & Land Case 14 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 4250 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kapsabet court has temporarily frozen a land dispute, ordering parties to keep the peace and preserve crops while it decides whether earlier orders should be reviewed.
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 Officer Commanding Station Kapsabet should provide security during implementation of the orders of 30th January 2023
- 2.Whether the orders/decree of 30th January 2023 should be reviewed, varied and/or set aside
- 3.What interim orders should preserve the substratum of the suit pending hearing of the applications
Key legal issues
#Interim preservation of the suit property pending determination of the applications
The court granted a partial status quo order restraining the applicants from interfering with the plaintiff's occupation, crops or alienation of the land
Both counsel agreed that the applications should be allowed in part by way of a status quo order to sustain the substratum of the suit, citing Ogada-vs-Mollin (2009) eKLR. The court adopted this common position and, to meet the ends of justice, issued an interim order protecting the plaintiff's occupation of the subdivision and preserving the maize crop, with police oversight of implementation.
Legal principles established
#- Where two applications are pending, the court may preserve the substratum of the suit by an order of status quo pending their outcome
Court orders
#- 1.Plaintiff/respondent's counsel to file and serve a response to the second application within seven days
- 2.Applicants' counsel to file and serve any rejoinder and submissions within seven days of service of the response, the applications to be heard by written submissions
- 3.Respondent's counsel to file and serve submissions within seven days upon service of the submissions by respondent
- 4.Applicants shall respect the portion of land occupied by the plaintiff in LR No. Nandi/Kapkangani/2XX7, a subdivision of LR No. Nandi/Kapkangani/5X5, and shall not uproot or destroy maize planted thereon or transfer or alienate any portion thereof pending hearing and determination of the two applications
- 5.The Officer Commanding Chepsonoi/Kaimosi Police Station to oversee the implementation of the interim orders
- 6.Further directions on both applications on 24th July 2025
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original land jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; prior judgment of the court dated 30th January 2023
Relief refused
#Order that the Officer Commanding Station Kapsabet provide security during implementation of the orders of 30th January 2023
The court instead directed the Officer Commanding Chepsonoi/Kaimosi Police Station to oversee implementation of the interim orders
Review, variation and setting aside of the orders/decree of 30th January 2023
Not determined; the second application remains pending with directions for filing of response, rejoinder and submissions
Costs
No costs order made
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.
It is common ground that the two applications be allowed in part by way of an order of status quo to sustain the substratum of the suit pending the outcome of the applications
The applicants shall respect the portion of land occupied by the plaintifi in LR No.Nandi/ Kapkangani/2XX7 being a sub division of LR NO. Nandi/Kapkangani/ 5X5 and in particular, they shall not uproot and or destroy maize planted thereon or transfer or alienate a portion thereof pending the hearing and determination of the two applications.
The oficer Commanding Chepsonoi/Kaimosi Police Station to oversee the implementation of the interim orders herein.
Further directions on both applications set for 24th July 2025.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not name the plaintiff/respondent or state the case number in the title; the number appears only in the body text and the plaintiff is referred to solely by role
Direction (c) appears to contain a drafting error, referring to submissions by 'respondent' in a direction addressed to the respondent's counsel
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mitei v Kosgei (Environment & Land Case 14 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 4250 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kapsabet ELCC NO. 11 of 2022 (as referenced). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4250/eng@2025-06-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.