Keter & another v Keter (Environment and Land Case E010 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2952 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Eldoret Environment and Land Court refused to evict a long-term occupant of disputed land before trial, dismissing the owners' injunction application with costs.
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 requirements for the grant of an order of temporary injunction
- 2.whether the orders sought are tenable at an interlocutory stage
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants established a prima facie case with a probability of success justifying an interlocutory injunction
Although the suit property is registered in the 1st applicant's name, both parties claim ownership and the respondent is in possession and occupation; the question of entitlement can only be decided at trial
The court applied the Giella test as elaborated in Mrao Ltd. There is no dispute the property is registered in the 1st applicant's name, nor that the respondent is in possession. The competing claims - licence versus joint acquisition and beneficial interest - raise genuine disputes of fact that cannot be resolved on affidavit at the interlocutory stage. Granting the orders would evict the respondent before trial, where one of the prayers in the plaint is eviction.
Whether the orders sought, being in substance a mandatory injunction, could issue at an interlocutory stage
No - the applicants failed to meet the higher threshold for an interlocutory mandatory injunction
The court noted the orders would compel the respondent out of possession, which is mandatory in effect. Applying Locabail International Finance Ltd v Agro Export, such an injunction requires special circumstances and a clear case. The respondent can still be evicted if the applicants succeed at trial, since eviction is among the prayers in the plaint. No special circumstances or clear case were demonstrated.
Legal principles established
#- The standard for granting an interlocutory mandatory injunction is higher than that for a prohibitory injunction; the court must feel a high sense of assurance that the injunction would be rightly granted at trial
- A prima facie case in a civil application is a genuine and arguable case on which a tribunal properly directing itself would conclude there is a right apparently infringed calling for an explanation or rebuttal
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 2nd February, 2026 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over the suit (Article 162(2)(b) ELC jurisdiction implied; not expressly cited in the ruling)
Relief refused
#Interlocutory injunction restraining the defendant from trespassing, entering, alienating, selling, leasing or interfering with L.R No. Pioneer Ngeria Block 1 (EATEC)/2176, and Police assistance to enforce compliance
The orders sought were in substance a mandatory injunction which requires a higher standard; the applicants did not make out a case for it and the respondent would effectively be evicted at an interlocutory stage
Costs
The application was dismissed with costs to the respondent
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 of this is that the Notice of motion dated 2nd February, 2026 lacks merit and the same is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
I am not satisfied that a case for mandatory injunction has been made out.
The suit is not yet determined and granting the orders sought will mean the respondent will be evicted at an interlocutory stage.
before granting a mandatory injunction the court has to feel a high sense of assurance that at the end of the trial, it would appear that the injunction had rightly been granted
Issues in the judgment
#The ruling does not state the suit number or the parties' names in the caption; the case title must be reconstructed from the body of the ruling
The date of delivery (14th May 2026) post-dates the application and affidavits of 2026, and the year 2026 appears unusual but is internally consistent in the text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Keter & another v Keter (Environment and Land Case E010 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2952 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 2nd February, 2026 (ELC suit, Eldoret). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2952/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.