Khasoha & 2 others v Nyokabi & 3 others; Wamunga & 4 others (Proposed Defendant) (Environment and Land Case E055 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 142 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Eldoret Land Court let a family add new parties to their land case but refused to freeze the disputed properties because they lacked documentary evidence.
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 have met the criteria for the grant of leave to amend the plaint.
- 2.Whether the applicants have met the requirements for the grant of an order of temporary injunction.
- 3.Who shall bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Leave to amend plaint to add parties
Leave granted; the amendment did not introduce a new cause of action and was necessary for effective adjudication and fair hearing of the proposed defendants.
Order 8 Rule 3 permits amendment at any stage on just terms. The applicants discovered the identities of the proposed registered proprietors only upon conducting official searches. The draft amended plaint merely added the proposed defendants and outlined their proprietorship without introducing new issues prejudicial to the existing defendants. Including them was necessary for complete adjudication and to allow them to be heard before any adverse decision.
Temporary injunction against the proposed defendants
Declined against the proposed defendants in respect of parcels 1450 and 1387 because they had not yet been heard.
Although leave to amend was granted, the proposed defendants had not had an opportunity to respond to the injunction application. Determining the injunctive prayer against them at that stage would condemn them unheard, offending the right to a fair hearing. The court therefore declined that prayer only against the proposed defendants and in respect of those two parcels.
Temporary injunction against the 1st–4th defendants
Dismissed for failure to establish a prima facie case.
Applying Giella v Cassman Brown as restated in Nguruman, the applicants had to prove a prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience sequentially. Save for official searches of parcels 1450 and 1387, no documentary evidence showed the properties formed part of the deceased's estate, that the 1st–4th defendants were registered proprietors, or that there were attempts to transfer the titles. The claims amounted to unfounded fear and apprehension.
Legal principles established
#- Amendment of pleadings should be allowed if it can be made without causing injustice to the other party.
- The three Giella v Cassman Brown principles for temporary injunction are separate hurdles to be proved sequentially; failure of the first disposes of the application.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the plaintiffs/applicants to amend their plaint and include the proposed defendants as parties in the suit (Elphas Shikuku Wamunga, Christopher Koech Cherogon, Paul Asai Akufana, Amukune Kubondo and Land Registrar Uasin Gishu County)
- 2.Plaintiffs/applicants directed to file and serve the amended plaint within 7 days from the date of the ruling
- 3.Corresponding leave granted to the defendants to amend their statement of defence within 14 days from the date of service if need be
- 4.Prayer No. (d) on temporary injunction dismissed
- 5.Each party to bear their own costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 8 Rule 3 and Order 40(1)(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules; section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the defendants from transferring, leasing, selling or dealing with the suit properties
The applicants failed to establish a prima facie case with a probability of success; no documentary evidence supported the claims that the properties formed part of the deceased's estate or that there were attempts to transfer them.
Injunction against the proposed defendants in respect of parcels Soy/Soy Block 10 (Navillus)/1450 and 1387
The proposed defendants had not been given an opportunity to respond to the application, and determining it against them would amount to condemning them unheard.
Costs
Each party to bear their 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.
The general rule is that amendment should be allowed if it can be made without causing injustice to the other party.
The right to a fair hearing is the corner stone of the rule of law.
The claims by the applicants thus amounts to unfounded fear and apprehension and is not suficient proof of their alleged claims of sale or transfer.
In view of the foregoing, it is the finding of this court that the Notice of Motion Application dated 21st October, 2025 is partially merited and is hereby allowed on the following terms:
e. Each party to bear their own costs of the application.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of the suit is not stated anywhere in the judgment/ruling.
The judgment refers to the application as made by 'the 1st plaintifi' alone in the affidavit, while the orders name 'Plaintiffs/Applicants'; the number of plaintiffs is not made explicit.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Khasoha & 2 others v Nyokabi & 3 others; Wamunga & 4 others (Proposed Defendant) (Environment and Land Case E055 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 142 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated on the face of the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/142/eng@2026-01-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.