Lake Region Traders Association (On behalf of its members and in the public interest) v County Government of Kisumu (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 45 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kisumu's Environment and Land Court has blocked the county from implementing its 2017 Draft Valuation Roll because earlier court orders against the same notice were never complied with.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether a temporary conservatory order should issue barring the Respondent from implementing the Draft Valuation Roll 2017 and Gazette Notice No. 15453 pending hearing and determination of the substantive petition
- 2.Whether the conservatory relief granted in prior litigation over the same Gazette Notice should extend to the Petitioners for equality and consistency
- 3.Who bears costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Entitlement to interim conservatory relief over the Draft Valuation Roll 2017 and Gazette Notice No. 15453
The conservatory order was granted because the identical Gazette Notice had been quashed and prohibited in earlier litigation (Republic v County Government of Kisumu Exparte John Michael Obure Obure (2022) and ELCEPJR/E002/2023) and no evidence of compliance with those orders was exhibited.
The court traced the prior litigation: the 2022 judicial review quashed Gazette Notice No. 11063 and prohibited implementation of the Draft Valuation Roll 2017, with a mandamus to redo the process lawfully; the 2023 case quashed Gazette Notice No. 15453 itself. The present subject is the same Gazette Notice No. 15453. Since no compliance with the earlier orders was demonstrated, and for equality and consistency, interim relief was justified pending full hearing.
Legal principles established
#- Where a Gazette Notice has been the subject of quashing and prohibitory orders in prior litigation and no compliance with those orders is shown, a conservatory order restraining implementation of the same notice may be granted pending trial.
Court orders
#- 1.A temporary conservatory order barring the Respondent, its agents and servants and those obtaining authority under it from implementing the Draft Valuation Roll 2017 and Gazette Notice No. 15453 published on 10th November 2023 pending the hearing and determination of the substantive petition
- 2.Each party to bear own costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original constitutional jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the interim application in the pending petition (supervisory and conservatory jurisdiction pending hearing of the substantive petition)
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.
I find that given the orders given in the previous litigation and and for equality and consistency, it is just that the conservatory order prayed for be granted pending hearing and determination of the petition as the Respondent complies with the court orders.
A temporary conservatory order is hereby issued barring the Respondent, its agents and servants and those obtaining authority under it jointly and severally from implementing the Draft Valuation Roll 2017 and Gazette Notice No. 15453 published by the Respondent on the 10th November 2023 in Gazette Vo. CXXV No. 240 pending the hearing and determination of the substantive petition.
The subject of the present case is the same Gazette Notice No. 15453 published on the 10th November 2023. No evidence has been exhibited of compliance with the earlier court orders.
Each party to bear own costs of the application.
Issues in the judgment
#Gazette Notice No. 11063 date appears inconsistently as '24th November 2020' and '24th December 2020' in different paragraphs
Petitioners' submissions state counsel urged the application 'with costs to the Respondent', which appears to conflict with the Petitioners' own application seeking costs from the Respondent
Case number of the present petition/application is not stated in the ruling
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lake Region Traders Association (On behalf of its members and in the public interest) v County Government of Kisumu (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 45 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the ruling (substantive petition pending). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/45/eng@2026-01-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.