Methodist Church in Kenya Trustees Registered & another v County Government of Tharaka Nithi & 6 others (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 376 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court threw out the Methodist Church's injunction application because its amended court documents broke basic amendment rules.
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 notice of motion dated 26/8/2025 should be allowed on its merits
- 2.Whether the second amended plaint dated 26/8/2025 on which the application is anchored complies with Order 8 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 3.Whether the application properly identifies the new parties to the suit
Key legal issues
#Compliance of the second amended plaint with the procedural mode of amendment
The second amended plaint dated 26/8/2025 is defective because it was neither appropriately titled as a further amended plaint nor amended in the manner prescribed by Order 8 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules
The court noted the pleading should ordinarily be a further amended plaint but was designated an amended plaint for unclear reasons. Order 8 rule 7 requires endorsement of the date and authority of amendment and marking of changes in red ink. The plaintiffs' pleading complied with none of these requirements, rendering it defective and unreliable as a foundation for interlocutory relief.
Whether an interlocutory application can be determined on its merits where it is anchored on defective pleadings
No - the court struck out the application without considering its merits because interlocutory relief must rest on proper pleadings
The court held that pleadings are central in land disputes and injunctive orders must be anchored on proper pleadings. Since the motion was expressly anchored on the defective second amended plaint, the court declined to delve into its merits and struck it out, reserving costs to the cause and scheduling a show-cause hearing on the fate of the defective plaint itself.
Legal principles established
#- Interlocutory injunctive relief must be anchored on proper pleadings
- A second amendment to a plaint must comply with Order 8 rule 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules, including endorsement and red-ink marking of amendments
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 26/8/2025 is struck out without venturing into its merits
- 2.Costs of the application shall be in the cause
- 3.The court will appoint a day when the plaintiffs will attend court to show cause why the defective amended plaint dated 26/8/2025 should not be struck out to pave way for disposal of the suit on the basis of the earlier amended plaint dated 28/1/2025
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original land and environment jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (statutory basis not expressly cited in the ruling)
Relief refused
#Interlocutory injunctive orders sought in the notice of motion dated 26/8/2025
The application is anchored on a defective second amended plaint that does not comply with the rules on amending an already amended plaint and is defective in identification of new parties
Costs
Costs of the application shall be 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.
For the above reasons, the court will strike out the application dated 26/8/2025 without venturing into its merits. Costs of the application shall be in the cause.
Pleadings are central in the adjudication of land disputes. Interlocutory reliefs such as the injunctive orders sought in the application under consideration ought to be anchored on proper pleadings.
The court will appoint a day when the plaintiffs will attend court to show cause why the defective amended plaint dated 26/8/2025 should not be struck out to pave way for disposal of the suit on the basis of the earlier amended plaint dated 28/1/2025.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment's caption, case number and the formal title of the notice of motion are not reproduced; the party names appear only indirectly through the plaint narrative and counsel appearances
Counsel's appearance list refers to some parties as 'Respondents' although this is a first-instance suit with plaintiffs and defendants
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Methodist Church in Kenya Trustees Registered & another v County Government of Tharaka Nithi & 6 others (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 376 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/376/eng@2026-01-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.