Kapkomoi v Korir alias Flomena Jelagat Mulwo (Environment and Land Case E029 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4795 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court declined a temporary injunction but froze the land through a status quo order, meaning neither side can sell, subdivide, or build on the property until the case is decided.
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 applicant is entitled to an injunction restraining the respondent from selling, subdividing or transferring the suit property pending hearing and determination of the main suit
- 2.Whether the status quo ought to be maintained in the suit
- 3.Whether the applicant has established the threshold for the prayers in the application
Key legal issues
#Whether to grant the temporary injunction sought
Not granted; instead a status quo order preserving the suit property was issued in the terms of prayer 5
Applying the Giella/Nguruman triple test, the court observed that the issues in the suit and application are highly contested, including whether the applicant is a purchaser in occupation since 2013 or a trespasser, and such contested questions require a full hearing. The court therefore preserved the suit land, in the interim, to ensure a fair hearing under Article 50(1) and section 13(7) of the ELC Act.
Whether a status quo order is available as an interim preservation measure
Yes; the court may issue status quo orders under section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015
The court held that section 13(7) of the ELC Act empowers it to grant interim preservation orders over the suit property, which include status quo orders preserving the subject matter pending the determination or termination of the suit, and this is consonant with the ends of justice and fair hearing under Article 50(1) of the Constitution.
Legal principles established
#- An applicant for an interlocutory injunction must sequentially satisfy the triple requirements of prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience
- The ELC has power to grant interim preservation orders including status quo orders to preserve the subject matter pending determination of the suit
- An injunction is an equitable and discretionary remedy
Court orders
#- 1.An order of status quo over the suit property Nandi/Ndalat Settlement Scheme/908 to be maintained by the parties pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 2.That the parties shall not sell, charge, transfer, subdivide, dispose of or alienate any portion of the suit land in any manner or erect any permanent structures thereon pending the outcome of the suit
- 3.Costs of the application to be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3 and 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015; sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) and Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Injunction restraining the respondent from selling, subdividing or transferring ownership of the suit property pending hearing and determination of the main suit
The court found that what is merited at the interim stage is a status quo order rather than the temporary injunction sought
Costs
Costs of the application 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.
In the result, the application dated 25th April 2026 is partially merited hence, prayer number 5 allowed for interim preservation order
That an order of status quo over the suit property pending the hearing and determination of this suit, be maintained by the parties
In particular, the parties shall not sell, charge, transfer, sub divide, dispose of or alienate any portion of the suit land in any manner or erect any permanent structures thereon pending the outcome of this suit
Costs of the application be in the cause
It is therefore, my considered view of that what is merited at this interim stage of the suit, is a status quo order rather than the temporary injunctive relief sought in the application
Issues in the judgment
#Application date given inconsistently: filed as 'dated 29th April 2026' but the disposition refers to 'the application dated 25th April 2026'
Typographical error in date of interim order: 'as given on 26th May 20026 herein'
Suit numbered ELCC No. 29 of 2022 yet the application and affidavit events are dated 2026, an internal chronological inconsistency in the record
The parties' actual names are never stated anywhere in the ruling; they appear only as applicant/plaintiff and defendant/respondent
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kapkomoi v Korir alias Flomena Jelagat Mulwo (Environment and Land Case E029 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4795 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kapsabet ELCC No. 29 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4795/eng@2026-07-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.