Lowoi & 10 others v Kipyego & 3 others; County Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer, Trans Nzoia & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E044 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7659 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Kitale court refused most injunctions over settlement-scheme land buyers had purchased, ruling an unpaid offer letter creates no ownership rights, but preserved the situation as it stood.
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 established a prima facie case warranting a temporary injunction (prayers 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11)
- 2.Whether the suit is res judicata in view of Kitale CMC E159 of 2014
- 3.Whether irreparable loss not compensable in damages would be suffered absent interim orders
- 4.Where the balance of convenience lies
- 5.Whether an order of status quo should issue (prayer 9)
Key legal issues
#Prima facie case for temporary injunction
Not established
The certificate of confirmation of grant did not list plot No. 93 as part of the deceased's estate and the title remains with the Settlement Fund Trustees. The respondents had not accepted any offer letter or discharged loan arrears, so no legally transferable interest existed. The sellers' capacity in the sale agreements was undefined, and the courts will not enforce an illegal contract.
Irreparable loss
Not demonstrated; loss quantifiable
The events the applicants sought to stop occurred in October 2024 and they knew of the loan arrears in December 2024, yet moved the court only in September 2025. A valuation report captured their investments, showing the alleged loss is compensable in damages, which defeats the irreparable harm threshold.
Balance of convenience
Tilts against granting injunction
The applicants had a pending former suit from 9/10/2024 to 16/9/2025 in which they could have challenged the resurvey but did not, and unexplained delay in moving to court despite knowledge of imminent repossession means the balance of convenience does not favour interim injunctive relief.
Status quo order
Granted as the status quo at 10:40 a.m. on the ruling date
Although no prima facie case was made, the court, in the interest of justice, preserved the position as at the date of the ruling until the suit is heard, adopting the principle that status quo means circumstances as at the time of the order.
Improper supplementary affidavit
Court declined to treat it as properly on record
The supplementary affidavit sworn on 22/10/2025 attaching an official search was filed without leave and was therefore not properly before the court.
Legal principles established
#- A letter of offer over settlement scheme land is a mere invitation to treat creating no transferable interest until perfected
- An allottee must first discharge indebtedness to the Settlement Fund Trustees before acquiring a legally transferable interest
- Prima facie case means a right infringed or in danger of breach calling for rebuttal
Court orders
#- 1.Prayer number (9) of the application dated 15/9/2025 allowed: the status quo subsisting at 10:40 a.m. on 5/11/2025 is to be maintained until hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.Prayers numbered 6, 7, 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the application denied
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 Rules 1, 2 and 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules as read with Section 63(a) of the Civil Procedure Act (interim injunctive relief in land dispute)
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd interested parties from discharging or repossessing land title No. Trans Nzoia/Suwerwa/93 (prayer 6)
No prima facie case established; the plot still belongs to the Settlement Fund Trustees and the vendors lacked transferable capacity
Nullification of the survey of 9/10/2024 and removal of resulting fences (prayer 7)
No prima facie case; delay of nearly a year in challenging the resurvey was unexplained
Broad temporary injunction restraining sale, survey, subdivision, transfer or interference with the suit land (prayer 8)
No prima facie case or irreparable harm; loss capable of compensation as captured in the valuation report
Ground report by the 1st and 2nd interested parties (prayer 10), police security (prayer 11) and costs (prayer 12)
No prima facie case established to support the prayers
Costs
Costs were sought in prayer 12 but that prayer was refused; no express costs order was 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.
The upshot is that, in the interest of justice, I allow prayer number (9) that the status quo subsisting at the date hereof, at 10:40 a.m., is to be maintained until hearing and determination of the suit.
I find no prima facie case established in the circumstances for the plaintifis to be entitled to prayers No. 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 12 of the application dated 15/9/2025.
It is not in dispute that the late Kigen Kipyego Limo, the allottee of plot No. 93 Suwerwa Settlement Scheme, passed on on 16/4/2000. The certificate of confirmation of grant was issued on 9/12/2002. Plot No. 93 is not listed as forming part of his estate.
A court of law cannot be used to enforce an illegal contract.
Equally, the 1st -3rd defendants lack the capacity to transact in the suit land before the letter of ofier issued by the defunct Settlement Fund Trustees to their late father is perfected one way or the other.
Issues in the judgment
#Giella vs Cassman Brown citation misprinted as [197] EA 358 in the judgment text
Res judicata objection by the 1st and 3rd respondents was raised in the replying affidavit but the court's judgment does not expressly rule on it, instead noting the former suit was pending between 9/10/2024 and 16/9/2025
Interests of the 2nd respondent are not separately pleaded; the replying affidavit is sworn by the 1st respondent 'on her own behalf and the 3rd respondent'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lowoi & 10 others v Kipyego & 3 others; County Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer, Trans Nzoia & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E044 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7659 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case of 2025 (Kitale) – application dated 15/9/2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7659/eng@2025-11-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.