Kurere (Suing as the Legal Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Kiptalam Cheberek) v County Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer, Trans Nzoia & 4 others; Managing Director Agricultural Development Corporation & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Petition E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4420 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kitale court refused to freeze a disputed settlement scheme plot, ruling the applicant first had to show real, irreversible harm she failed to prove.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.If the applicant has made a case for issuance of a conservatory and restraining order of injunction
- 2.If the petitioner raises novel and substantial issues to require an empanelment of a bench
- 3.If the court should order release and disclosure of the original and current list of allottees for the scheme and a report on whether there was an alteration of the same
- 4.If the Deputy Registrar of the court should visit the locus in quo, carry out public participation on the status of the reallocation and on who are the current occupants of the subject plot and other plots in other similar petitions pending before the court
Key legal issues
#Whether conservatory orders should issue over parcel Trans Nzoia/Zea/293
Dismissed - applicant failed to demonstrate a prima facie case, real danger of irreducible prejudice or a nugatory aspect; entry in the register is reversible and alternative remedies (inhibition/status quo) exist
The court applied the Munya and Kabenja Nkunja principles. The applicant produced only an old, unperfected letter of allotment, did not show the many other affected parcels or petitions, did not explain delay since the 2021 title issuance, and has not been evicted. The alleged harm is reversible, so public interest and the nugatory test were not met.
Whether the petition raises novel and substantial issues warranting a special bench
No - the discretion to certify was not triggered; the issues are not unique facts outside controlling precedents, and affected parties were not identified or joined
Applying Muiruri, Kinyanjui, Omtata Okoiti, Del Monte and Rawal, the court held that mere novelty or complexity is insufficient; there must be matters of general public importance not settled by precedent. The petitioner did not list affected parties, did not seek joinder, and did not attach authority to sue for others, so the substantial questions were never distilled.
Whether the court should compel disclosure of allotment lists and reports
No - the right of access to information under Article 35 was not activated because no written request or denial was demonstrated
The court applied Katiba Institute and Nairobi Law Monthly on the Article 35/Access to Information Act regime and Shollei on discharge of burden. The petitioner produced no evidence of a written request refused, nor any complaint to the Commission on Administrative Justice; ordinary discovery remained available at the hearing.
Whether the Deputy Registrar should conduct a site visit and public participation
No - no special circumstances shown; a site visit verifies evidence already given, not a fact-finding expedition
Relying on Order 18 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Kangye v Bwana Kampala, the court held that visits depend on circumstances and special circumstances, and that the court cannot descend into the arena or conduct what is essentially a judicial function of determining occupation through public participation.
Legal principles established
#- Conservatory orders preserve the substratum of the matter pending determination of the main dispute, and require demonstration of real danger of prejudice from constitutional violation
- Certification of a substantial question of law and empanelment of a bench is a judicial discretion, not a right, requiring absolute necessity
- A scene visit is not mandatory and the court cannot descend into the arena or undertake fact-finding missions for parties
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 25/2/2024 is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 22, 23, 40, 47 and 60 of the Constitution; Section 21 Environment and Land Court Act (invoked for empanelment); Article 165 ELC jurisdiction
Relief refused
#Conservatory and restraining orders (prayer b) preserving possession of parcel Trans Nzoia/Zea/293
No prima facie case shown; allotment letter not perfected; title issued in 2021 and delay unexplained; entry into register is reversible and petitioner can seek inhibition/status quo orders instead
Certification of the petition as raising substantial questions of law for empanelment of a special bench under Section 21 ELC Act / Article 165(4)
Petitioner did not identify affected parties, similar pending petitions, or distil novel issues; empanelment is a judicial discretion requiring absolute necessity
Orders for disclosure of original and current lists of allottees and a report on alteration of the lists
No evidence the petitioner requested the information in writing and was denied, and no complaint to the Commission on Administrative Justice; discovery available at hearing under Order 11
Direction for Deputy Registrar to visit Zea Settlement Scheme and conduct public participation
Special circumstances not shown; a scene visit checks evidence given in court, not to fill gaps; the court cannot descend to the arena
Costs
The application dated 25/2/2024 is dismissed with costs.
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 upshot is that I find no basis to grant the prayers sought. The application dated 25/2/2024 is dismissed with costs.
In the circumstances obtaining, I find no basis for the court to direct the Deputy Registry to visit the scene and conduct a public participation to determine who is in occupation of the land. That cannot be part of a judicial function.
In sum, I have no basis to invoke Section 21 of the Environment Land Court Act.
The petitioner does not require a conservatory order to stop any other transactions in the title register. This can be dealt with by way of inhibition or orders of the status quo.
There is no evidence that the petitioner has sought in writing for such information from the respondents and the interested party and has been denied access.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment describes the matter as a petition but disposes only of the interlocutory application dated 25/2/2024; the substantive petition remains pending, so the classification is interlocutory despite being styled a judgment/ruling
The case title of the instant petition is not stated on the face of the extract; parties and case number are reconstructed from the body
Respondent naming and numbering inconsistent in the text (respondents' replying affidavit described as sworn by two persons in one place and one person in another)
Prayer (c)(v) direction is incomplete on the face of the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kurere (Suing as the Legal Personal Representative of the Estate of Robert Kiptalam Cheberek) v County Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer, Trans Nzoia & 4 others; Managing Director Agricultural Development Corporation & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Petition E003 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 4420 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Petition (application dated 25/2/2024), ELC Kitale. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4420/eng@2025-06-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.