Chomber v Kosgey & 3 others
The bottom line
#The Eldoret Environment and Land Court stopped defendants from carving a road through disputed land until the full case is 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 applicant has sufficiently met the requirements for the grant of an order of temporary injunction
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case
Yes - ownership is undisputed and the threatened carving out of 3m would alter the substratum of the suit.
Ownership of the suit land is not in dispute. The court found an imminent risk of the 4th respondent carving out 3m, damaging the fence and altering boundaries, which would alter the substratum of the suit. Applying the Mrao definition, the applicant demonstrated an apparent infringement of a right calling for rebuttal, without delving into the merits at the interlocutory stage.
Whether the applicant demonstrated irreparable loss not compensable by damages
Yes - the physical alteration of the land and boundaries is not reversible, and an existing 3m road means access is not blocked.
The court accepted that carving out the 3m, ploughing and altering boundaries would cause permanent physical alteration not compensable in damages. It also rejected the respondents' claim that the injunction would block access, since an access road already exists on the ground measuring 3m.
Where the balance of convenience lies
In favour of the applicant.
Balancing the hardship to each side, the court found the balance of convenience favoured the applicant, since granting the injunction preserves the status quo pending substantive determination, whereas implementing the survey recommendation before trial would pre-empt the court's determination.
Legal principles established
#- The three Giella conditions for a temporary injunction are sequential hurdles that must each be surmounted.
- An interlocutory injunction serves to preserve the subject matter of the suit by maintaining the status quo.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 01.04.2026 be and is hereby allowed
- 2.An order of temporary injunction restraining the Defendants/Respondents from entering, remaining upon, ploughing, damaging existing boundaries, opening and/or creating an access road and/or dealing with land parcel Tembeleo/Illula Block 1 (Muinyengwet)/71 pending the hearing and determination of the main suit
- 3.Costs of the present Application be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2015; Order 40(1)(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules
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.
The application dated 01.04.2026 be and is hereby allowed.
An order of temporary injunction be and is hereby issued restraining the Defendants/ Respondents either by themselves, their agents, servants and/or anybody claiming under them from entering, remaining upon, ploughing, damaging existing boundaries, opening and/or creating an access road
Costs of the present Application be in the cause.
The totality of the foregoing is that the applicant has sufficiently proved all the three elements and has therefore met the required threshold for the grant of a temporary injunction.
Issues in the judgment
#Numbered issue list appears duplicated with slightly different wording in the judgment text.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chomber v Kosgey & 3 others", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Case E003 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6116/eng@2026-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.