Okungi v Adingo (Sued as the Administrator of the Estate of the Late Kiptarus Arap Arusei - Deceased) (Environment and Land Case E023 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7795 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet refused to order a landowner to reopen a blocked road mid-case, ruling the access dispute must wait for full trial.
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 orders sought in the Notice of Motion dated 20th August 2025 (opening of the locked/closed road and police escort to remove structures) are meritorious at the interlocutory stage
Key legal issues
#Whether the Court should order reopening of the alleged closed access road at the interlocutory stage
No; the order sought relates to the suit land and the dispute over ownership and access, which must be determined at trial
The suit is an originating summons for adverse possession over Nandi/Serem/271. The road issue is intertwined with the parties' competing claims over the suit land. Granting the interlocutory orders would pre-empt trial issues and prejudice the parties, contrary to the non-derogable right to a fair trial under Articles 50(1) and 25(c). The Court also noted parallel suits involving the same subject matter, reinforcing that the dispute must proceed to full trial.
Whether the Applicant established entitlement to the mandatory-type orders and police escort sought
No; the Respondent disputed blocking any access and asserted the Applicant has an alternative access road, so no basis existed for the orders
The Respondent deponed she has occupied one acre of the suit land since 2001, that no access road passes over her portion, and that the Applicant has used an alternative access for decades. The Court found the orders would pre-empt trial issues. The application was therefore found devoid of merit and dismissed with costs in the cause.
Legal principles established
#- Interlocutory orders that would pre-empt the trial court's determination of disputed issues of ownership and access over suit land should not be granted
- The right to a fair trial under Articles 50(1) and 25(c) of the Constitution is non-derogable and guides interlocutory decision-making
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 20th August 2025 is dismissed with costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court Act, 2015 (Sections 3 and 19(a)) cited by the Applicant's counsel; original interlocutory jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court
Relief refused
#Order directing the Respondent to open the locked and/or closed road leading to the Applicant's homestead on land parcel No. Nandi/Serem/271
Granting the order would pre-empt determination of issues in dispute for trial and prejudice the parties; the road issue must be ascertained at trial
Order directing the Officer Commanding Section, Kobujoi Police Station to provide escort and remove illegal structures on the road
Same reasoning as the principal order; the matter relates to the suit land whose ownership and access are for trial
Costs of the application to the Applicant
Application dismissed; costs awarded in the cause, not to the Applicant immediately
Costs
Application dismissed with 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.
granting the said order may pre-empt the determination of the issues in dispute for trial. Further, it is bound to prejudice the parties thus, the essence of fair trial in this suit.
fair trial of is an unlimited right under Articles 50 (1) as read with Article 25 (c) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
Accordingly, the application dated 20th August 2025 is devoid of merit. The same is hereby dismissed with costs in the cause.
the principal order sought in the application relates to a road or path on the suit land. That issue, among others, need to be ascertained at the trial of the suit without delay. So, the said order cannot be granted at this interlocutory stage of the suit for the ends of justice.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number of the suit; the originating summons is dated 12th October 2023 and Kapsabet ELCLC No. E024 of 2023 is referenced as a parallel suit, though the ruling of 19th September 2024 suggests the two suits are related but separate, leaving the present suit's number unclear
Contradictory description of William Mudoga: the Respondent's supporting narrative calls him the Respondent's son instructing goons, while the replying affidavit says her son purchased the land; also the Respondent's counsel is described as 'Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff/Respondent' inconsistently with 'Defendant/Applicant' for the other side
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okungi v Adingo (Sued as the Administrator of the Estate of the Late Kiptarus Arap Arusei - Deceased) (Environment and Land Case E023 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7795 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kapsabet ELCLC No. E024 of 2023 (implied; originating summons dated 12th October 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7795/eng@2025-11-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.