Migori County Government v Attorney General & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5360 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether an order of injunction should issue against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents from interfering with the Petitioner's or its licensee's activities on the suit property
- 2.Who to bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#The binding effect of the consent order recorded on 30th October 2025
The consent settling the Petition, subject only to the survey and the question of costs, stands as a decree of the Court and was never set aside; it binds both parties
The court held that a consent order is contractual and, once adopted, becomes an enforceable decree. Neither party sought to set it aside or alleged fraud, mistake or misrepresentation; both in fact invoked it. Questions of ownership of the disputed portions were therefore closed, leaving only the survey and costs outstanding.
Whether an injunction should issue restraining the Respondents' interference pending the agreed survey
An injunction was granted because the Respondents could not demonstrate how they fixed the forest boundary on land that has not been surveyed, by officers who are not qualified surveyors
The court found the conflict rooted in the unimplemented consent: the forested portion has not been demarcated, so each party regards the other as a trespasser. Since the boundaries have never been fixed and no survey has been undertaken, the Respondents had no basis to police land they could not delineate, justifying an injunction pending the survey.
Prayer 3 (return of generator keys)
The court found the prayer overtaken by events yet, inconsistently, went on to grant it in the final orders
The 3rd Respondent deponed, producing a release letter of 9th June 2026, that the key had been returned and operations resumed; this was uncontroverted and no supplementary affidavit was filed. The court stated a court does not order the doing of that which has already been done, yet the final orders directed return of the keys.
Legal principles established
#- A consent order is contractual in nature; once adopted by the court it takes the force of an enforceable order or decree and can only be varied on grounds that would justify setting aside a contract
- A consent entered into by counsel binds all parties and cannot be set aside or varied except on grounds such as fraud, collusion, agreement contrary to public policy, or insufficient material facts
Court orders
#- 1.An order directed against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents, their employees, agents or any person acting through them to immediately stop interfering with the operations and activities of the Petitioner and its authorised licensees on the suit property Muhuru Kadem/Macalder/498 Migori County pending the survey consented to by the parties on 30th October 2025
- 2.An order directing the 3rd Respondent, its Migori County Director of Forest, its Migori County Commandant of Forest Mr. Mohamed Mohamed and Forest Officer Faith Chepleting to return immediately the generator keys taken from the premises of Marowa Stores Limited on 30th May 2026 and cease interfering with the operations of the said business
- 3.Any activities on the suit land by the parties should cease until the boundaries of the forest service and that of Migori County are determined
- 4.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original petition under Articles 40, 47 and 63 of the Constitution; interlocutory application under Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Costs of the application borne by the 3rd Respondent and its officers (Prayer 4)
Both litigants are public bodies expending public funds; the survey and subdivision are joint machinery from which each party benefits equally
Costs
Each party to bear their own costs.
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.
There is hereby issued an order directed against the 2nd and 3rd Respondents herein, their employees, agents or any person acting through them be directed to immediately stop interfering with the operations and activities of the Petitioner and its authorised licensees on the suit property
Therefore, any activities on the suit land by the parties herein should cease until the boundaries of the forest service and that of Migori County is determined.
Each party to bear their own costs.
It can only be interfered with or varied on the grounds upon which a contract may be set aside. These include, fraud, mistake, misrepresentation or the agreement being contrary to public policy.
The friction on the ground is the direct product of an unimplemented decree.
Issues in the judgment
#The court expressly found Prayer 3 overtaken by events yet went on to grant it in the final orders
The Forest Conservation and Management Act is mis-cited as Chapter 385; the 2nd Respondent is never identified by name; the judgment is styled a Ruling but disposed of the application by final orders
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Migori County Government v Attorney General & 3 others (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5360 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5360/eng@2026-08-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.