Kosgei v Barno & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E033 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5022 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Kapsabet Environment and Land Court preserved the status quo over disputed Plot 33 Kabote Farm, letting the plaintiff keep possession but refusing a full injunction.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Has the Plaintiff/Applicant met the threshold for grant of the injunctive orders sought?
- 2.What orders can issue for the ends of justice herein?
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff met the Giella v Cassman Brown threshold for a temporary injunction
The court did not grant the injunction; because the facts were highly contested it instead issued a status quo order in lieu of injunctive relief.
The court restated the Giella v Cassman Brown requirements (prima facie case, irreparable injury, balance of convenience) and Nguruman's admonition against leap-frogging between the hurdles. However, finding the suit to have very highly contested facts between the parties, it exercised its preservation jurisdiction under section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act to maintain the status quo rather than grant a restraining order.
Power of the court to issue status quo and preservation orders
Section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act empowers the court to grant interim or permanent preservation orders including injunctions and status quo orders; a status quo order preserves the land pending outcome of the suit.
The court invoked section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act and, relying on Festus Ogada v Hans Mollin and Musa Angira Angira v ICDC, held that a status quo order is meant to preserve the land in question pending the outcome of the suit, making it the appropriate remedy here.
Legal principles established
#- The Environment and Land Court is empowered to grant interim or permanent preservation orders, including injunctions and status quo orders.
- Where facts are highly contested, a status quo order is the appropriate preservation remedy pending determination of the suit.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of status quo preserving the subsisting status over the suit land pending hearing and determination of the suit, with the Plaintiff/applicant continuing in ownership and possession, and the land not to be sold, charged, sub divided, transferred or disposed of to any other party pending the outcome of the suit
- 2.Each party to bear their own costs of the Application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act; Order 40 Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
Relief refused
#Restraining (interlocutory injunctive) orders against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants
Given the highly contested facts, the court granted a status quo order in lieu of the injunctive relief sought.
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs of the Application.
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.
An order of status quo is hereby issued preserving the subsisting status over the suit land pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
the Plaintiff/applicant to continue having ownership and possession of the suit land which shall not be sold, charged, sub divided, transferred or disposed of to any other party pending the outcome of the suit.
Each party to bear their own costs of the Application.
These are the three pillars on which rests the foundation of any order of injunction, interlocutory or permanent.
section 13 (7) of the Environment and Land Court Act empowers this court to grant any interim or permanent preservation orders.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistencies: the supplementary affidavit is dated '23rd June 2026' though the motion is dated November 2025, and submissions are dated July 2026 while the application is dated 21st November 2025.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kosgei v Barno & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E033 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5022 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kapsabet ELCLC No. E033 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5022/eng@2026-07-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.