Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNot stated in the judgment text provided

Koros & 3 others v Tormoi (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E005 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5448 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
21 July 2025
GOG Ma Ongondo
1,055 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet struck out an application for police security during a land subdivision because the applicants breached civil procedure rules and had pending appeals.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants, by Notice of Motion dated 8th March 2024, sought an order directing the Officer Commanding Station, Kabiyet Police Station, to provide security to the County surveyor or his representative during the subdivision of Land Parcel Number Nandi/Chepterwa/858, pursuant to a Court of Appeal order of 13th May 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2018 directing the subdivision and transfer of 0.3 acres to the respondent. The application was supported by the affidavit of the 2nd applicant and anchored on grounds that land matters are volatile and require security during subdivision. The respondent opposed through a replying affidavit filed 16th January 2025, contending that the applicants violated Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and that pending applications before the Court of Appeal dated 30th September 2022 and 13th February 2023 for stay, review and status quo would be rendered nugatory. Counsel filed written submissions citing various authorities. The court held that although the applicants had a right to have the Court of Appeal orders effected and the orders sought lay within its discretion to be exercised judicially, the applicants had violated Order 9 Rule 9 as demonstrated by the memorandum of appearance, and the pending Court of Appeal applications could not run simultaneously with the instant application. The application was found misplaced and inept and was struck out, with each party bearing their own costs. The date was set by the court in line with Article 159(2)(c) that justice shall not be delayed.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Is the application meritorious?

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the application for police security during Court of Appeal-ordered subdivision should be granted

Holding

The application was struck out as misplaced and inept

Reasoning

The court acknowledged the applicants' right to have the Court of Appeal orders effected but found two disqualifying defects: first, the applicants violated Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules as demonstrated by the memorandum of appearance (VT-5); second, there were pending applications before the Court of Appeal for stay, review and status quo which could not run simultaneously with this application, as it would render them nugatory.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The exercise of any discretion of the court must be exercised judicially
  • Litigants and their professional advisors are the best judges of their affairs

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 8th March 2024 (dismissed on 19th March 2024 and reinstated on 14th November 2024) is struck out
  2. 2.Each party to bear own costs of the application

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

GO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 159 and 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; section 26(3) and (4) of the Environment and Land Court Act; further to the Court of Appeal order of 13th May 2022 in Civil Appeal No. 36 of 2018

Relief refused

#

Order that the Officer Commanding Station, Kabiyet Police Station provide security to the County surveyor or his representative during subdivision of Land Parcel Number Nandi/Chepterwa/858

The applicants violated Order 9 Rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, and there are pending applications before the Court of Appeal which cannot run simultaneously with this application

p. 3

Costs

Each party to bear own costs of the application

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.

To this end, I find the instant application misplaced and inept.
p. 3Disposition of the application
Wherefore, the application dated 8th March 2024, dismissed on 19th March 2024 and reinstated on 14th November 2024, is hereby struck out and each party to bear own costs of the same given the prevailing circumstances.
p. 3Final orders
The exercise of any discretion of the court, must be exercised judicially
p. 3Judicial discretion

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Internal inconsistency in dates: the application is dated 8th March 2024 yet the judgment recites it as 'dismissed on 19th March 2024 and reinstated on 14th November 2024' within the same sentence ordering striking out

minor

Case number of the instant suit is not stated anywhere in the judgment text; paragraph numbering is irregular (paragraphs 1-2 blank, then a second sequence beginning at 1)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Koros & 3 others v Tormoi (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E005 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5448 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5448/eng@2025-07-21

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.