Lepakkiras & 7 others v Sereolopi Community Land Management Committee (CMLC) & 7 others (Environment and Land Petition E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3549 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Sereolipi community members lost their bid to block a land lease after failing to prove their consultation claims in an interlocutory application before the Isiolo Environment and Land Court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a prima facie case was established for temporary injunction
No prima facie case established; the Applicants failed to place credible evidence that the community was not consulted, and minutes of engagements annexed by the Respondents were not controverted
The Applicants bore the burden of proving lack of consultation and informed consent. They did not adduce evidence to controvert the minutes and resolutions annexed by the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Respondents showing engagements with the community. Whether the engagements met the qualitative and quantitative threshold of public participation is a matter for plenary hearing with evidence and cross-examination, not an interlocutory application. Absent a prima facie case, the injunction must fail.
Whether the 3rd Respondent was improperly joined
The 3rd Respondent is properly joined and is a necessary party, being the conceded beneficiary of the intended lease
The 3rd Respondent conceded it is the investor in whose favour the lease is being issued and is engaged in ongoing negotiations. It cannot deny a cause of action against itself while claiming the benefit of the lease (approbating and reprobating). Striking it out risks its rights and interests being affected without participation, contrary to Articles 47 and 50 of the Constitution. Applying the definition of cause of action in Kigwor Company Limited v Samedy Trading Company Limited, a cause of action exists against it.
Whether the 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents were properly sued
The 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents were improperly joined; the petition against them was struck out
The community land is duly registered with a certificate of title, so the County Government's custodianship under Section 6 of the Community Land Act ceased and management vests in the CLMC. The Land Registrar Nyahururu, appointed under the Land Registration Act, has no mandate over community land, which is the domain of the Community Land Registrar. The National Land Commission's mandate under Articles 67 and 68 extends only to public land. Their joinder was founded on misapprehension of the law.
Whether conservatory orders canvassed only in submissions could be granted
No - a party cannot seek a new relief through submissions without amending the application
The Applicants raised conservatory orders for the first time in their written submissions, although the notice of motion did not seek them. Introducing a new relief through submissions amounts to smuggling the issue through the back door. The correct course was to amend the application. Citing IEBC v Stephen Mutinda Mule and Emuria v Sambu, the court held the issue was not available for consideration.
Whether the court could compel disclosure of accounts and records under Article 35
No - Article 35 does not fall within the mandate of the Environment and Land Court and the Applicants bypassed the Access to Information Act mechanism
Following Aluochier v Senate and Njonjo Mue v IEBC (Supreme Court), citizens seeking information held by state organs must follow the prescribed procedure under the Access to Information Act, including application to the custodian and review by the Commission on Administrative Justice. The Applicants' approach was unorthodox, premature and misconceived, and Article 35 enforcement falls outside the ELC's mandate.
Legal principles established
#- Failure to establish a prima facie case defeats the grant of an order of temporary injunction
- A party cannot introduce a new relief through written submissions; the application must be amended
- Upon registration of community land, the County Government's role as custodian ceases and management vests in the Community Land Management Committee
- A party cannot approbate and reprobate - one who concedes being the beneficiary of a lease cannot simultaneously claim no cause of action exists against it
- Citizens seeking information under Article 35 must follow the prescribed procedure under the Access to Information Act
Court orders
#- 1.The Application dated the 30.10.2025 be and is hereby Dismissed
- 2.The Petition as against the 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents be and is hereby struck out
- 3.Costs of the application be and are hereby awarded to the Respondents
- 4.Costs of the Petition (the limb of the Petition struck out) be and are hereby awarded to 5th, 6th and 7th Respondents
- 5.The costs shall be agreed upon and in default be taxed in the conventional manner
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 2, 3, 10, 11, 21, 22, 23, 40, 42, 43, 47, 56, 60, 63, 69 and 159 of the Constitution; Sections 6 and 16 of the Community Land Act, 2016
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lepakkiras & 7 others v Sereolopi Community Land Management Committee (CMLC) & 7 others (Environment and Land Petition E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3549 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion Application dated 30.10.2025 (arising out of a Petition). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3549/eng@2026-06-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.