Chilliwak Church of God & another v Mukembu & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E015 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5162 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court froze the disputed properties, stopping any sale or transfer until the trust dispute is fully heard.
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 application satisfies the criteria for granting a conservatory or interim order pending the hearing and disposal of the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the criteria for a conservatory order pending the hearing of the suit were met
The application met the criteria and a status quo/conservatory order was granted pending the hearing and determination of the suit
The court applied the Supreme Court's criteria in Gatirau Peter Munya, noting the applicants' apprehension that their proprietary interest would be prejudiced. The respondents admitted the properties could not be disposed of without the authority of other officials per the bylaws, and would suffer no prejudice if the orders issued. The existing agreement between the parties supported preservation of the subject matter.
Legal principles established
#- Conservatory orders are granted on the inherent merit of a case, bearing in mind the public interest, the constitutional values and proportionate magnitudes, unlike interlocutory injunctions
Court orders
#- 1.A conservatory order (status quo order) restraining the defendants/respondents, their servants, agents and employees from advertising for sale, alienating, transferring or otherwise dealing with or meddling with the subject properties pending the hearing and determination of the main suit
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause (prayer 7 allowed)
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 40, 50 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Sections 1A, 2B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Sections 76 and 101 of the Land Registration Act; Sections 3 and 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#Prayers 1, 2, 4 (marked spent) were not granted afresh; only prayers 3 and 7 were allowed
The court found only prayers 3 and 7 met the criteria and granted those alone
Costs
Costs of the application to 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.
By and large, it is the finding of the court that the application under consideration meets the criteria for grant of a conservatory order, such as a status quo order that the applicants seek and thus proceed to allow prayers no. 3 and 7 of the application dated 18th December 2025
It is so ordered.
I am more persuaded to grant the conservatory order sought pending the disposal of the suit. The respondents in my view shall suffer no prejudice if the orders are granted
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment labels the moving party's submissions as 'THE APPELLANTS' CASE' and refers to the applicants as 'the 1st applicant' and 'the 2nd applicant' although the motion lists a single applicant, Stanley Engelbrecht; it also confuses the '2nd applicant' with the '2nd defendant'
Affidavits dated 18th December 2025 and 11th May 2026 and a replying affidavit dated 21st April 2026 postdate or precede inconsistently with submissions dated 23rd February 2026
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chilliwak Church of God & another v Mukembu & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E015 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5162 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC CASE NO. E015 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5162/eng@2026-07-31
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.