Lobaratum (Suing as the Legal and Personal Representative of the Estate of Elijah Motopot Karumases - Deceased) v Pkemoi (Sued in His Capacity as the Administrator of the Estate of Elijah Lopeyok Mukee) & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E061 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2054 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Kitale Environment and Land Court refused a family's bid to freeze dealings in a West Pokot title, finding it offered no evidence of its father's ownership.
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 plaintiff has established a prima facie case with a probability of success
- 2.Whether the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss not compensable by damages if the injunction is not granted
- 3.Whether the balance of convenience favours the grant of the temporary injunction
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case for a temporary injunction
No prima facie case was established; the plaintiff did not attach adjudication records or documents showing his late father's interest in the suit property, and the defendants hold a title issued in 1985 and a rectified grant
The court reviewed the plaintiff's claim that his late father's name was fraudulently removed from the register and the 1st defendant's contrary evidence of adjudication records, contradictory chief's letters, and an unexplained delay of 46 years. There was no adjudication book or card demonstrating the deceased's recorded interest. On the Mrao and Giella tests, the plaintiff failed to demonstrate an apparently infringed right warranting interlocutory protection.
Whether the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm
No; the loss claimed was quantifiable in monetary terms and the plaintiff had not occupied the land for over 46 years
Citing Kathiri v Chege and Nguruman, the court held that injury must be actual, substantial and demonstrable, not speculative. The plaintiff's alleged loss over the suit land and the easement payments was capable of being quantified and compensated in damages, and the injury was neither immediate nor pressing.
Balance of convenience
The balance of convenience favoured the defendants, who would suffer greater inconvenience if the injunction were granted and the suit ultimately dismissed
Applying Kogo v Tenai, the court compared the prejudice to each side. The plaintiff had not been in occupation for over 46 years and the land had been transmitted through succession with a certificate of confirmation of grant; restraining dealings would prejudice the 1st and 3rd defendants more than the plaintiff.
Legal principles established
#- A prima facie case is one in which, on the material presented, there is a conclusion of the existence of a right which has apparently been infringed so as to call for an explanation or rebuttal from the opposite side (Mrao test)
- The three Giella conditions must be established sequentially; if no prima facie case is established, the other limbs need not be considered
- In an interlocutory application the court does not make final findings on contested facts but weighs the relative strength of the parties' cases
- A claim based on fraud does not begin to run until the plaintiff discovers the fraud (Section 26, Limitation of Actions Act)
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 27/11/2025 seeking a temporary injunction is dismissed
- 2.The plaintiff to pay the costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over land disputes; interim relief sought under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd defendants from transmitting or dealing with Land Title No. West Pokot/Keringeti 'A'/368
The plaintiff failed to establish the Giella tests; no prima facie case, loss was quantifiable and not irreparable, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendants
Suspension of payments in relation to the easement granted to the 3rd defendant over the suit property
Application dismissed; the relief sought was in the nature of a permanent injunction which can only issue after trial
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs to the defendants.
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 I find the applicant has failed to meet the ingredients of a temporary injunction. The application is dismissed with costs.
if a prima facie case is not established, then the irreparable injury and the balance of convenience need no consideration.
the period of limitation in a claim based on fraud does not begin to run until the plaintifi has discovered the fraud.
a court is not required to make final findings on contested facts and law, but only weigh the relative strength of the parties' cases.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the suit case number, making the brief's case number incomplete
The identity of the parties is inconsistently rendered; the plaintiff's deceased father is referred to with varying names and the 1st defendant is described as both the former tenant and holder of a rectified grant
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lobaratum (Suing as the Legal and Personal Representative of the Estate of Elijah Motopot Karumases - Deceased) v Pkemoi (Sued in His Capacity as the Administrator of the Estate of Elijah Lopeyok Mukee) & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E061 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2054 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (ELC suit, Kitale). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2054/eng@2026-04-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.