Korir v Chepkwony
The bottom line
#A Kericho court refused to stop dealings over disputed tea land, ruling that money can compensate the buyer's claimed loss while the main case continues.
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 Plaintiff/Applicant has met the criteria for grant of an order of temporary injunction pending the hearing and determination of this suit
- 2.Whether entry No. 4 on the register for land parcel No. Kericho/Litein/560 should be cancelled
- 3.Who should bear costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant established a prima facie case
Yes - the documents attached showed an interest in the suit parcel
The applicant attached a handwritten sale agreement of 19th September 1986 for a two-acre portion of Kericho/Litein/560 and photographs of tea planted. It is not disputed the defendant is the registered owner. From the documents the court found the applicant has an interest in the land, sufficient to establish a prima facie case, with the nature and extent of that interest left for the main hearing.
Whether the applicant demonstrated irreparable injury
No - alleged economic loss is compensable by damages
Relying on Nguruman and Kogo, the court held the applicant must demonstrate actual, substantial and demonstrable injury that damages cannot adequately compensate. The applicant only submitted he would suffer economic loss if the prayers were not granted, which falls short of the threshold; speculative injury or measurable economic loss does not satisfy the second Giella condition.
Balance of convenience
It does not tilt in the applicant's favour
Because possession of the suit parcel is hotly contested - the applicant claims possession since December 1986 while the defendant depones he has always been in possession to the exclusion of the applicant - the court held the possession question is best addressed at the main hearing, and on the material before it the balance of convenience did not favour the applicant.
Whether entry No. 4 on the register should be cancelled
No - it is a final order not grantable at an interlocutory stage
The applicant sought cancellation of the mutation entry registered on 21st February 2023. Neither party made submissions on this prayer. The court held the prayer is in the nature of a final order and cannot be granted at the preliminary stage of proceedings, effectively deferring or refusing it without merits analysis.
Legal principles established
#- Conditions for grant of interlocutory injunctions: prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury not compensable by damages, and balance of convenience
- Costs follow the event unless the court for good reason directs otherwise
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff/Applicant's Notice of Motion application dated 31st July, 2025 is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining encroachment, cultivation and interference with the two-acre portion of Kericho/Litein/560
Applicant failed to demonstrate irreparable injury not compensable by damages; balance of convenience did not tilt in his favour
Temporary injunction restraining dealings in Kericho/Litein/560 and subdivisions Kericho/Litein/2742 and 2743
Same failure on the Giella criteria
Cancellation/revocation of entry No. 4 registered on 21st February 2023 (mutation of title)
It is a final order which cannot be granted at a preliminary stage; no submissions were made on it
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the Defendant
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.
Taking the foregoing into consideration, I nd that the Plainti/Applicant's Notice of Motion application dated 31st July, 2025 lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs.
It is therefore this Court's view that that the Plainti/Applicant has established a prima facie case.
the Plainti/Applicant has not demonstrated that he will suerirreparable damage which cannot be adequately compensated by way of damages if the orders sought are not granted
Given the said circumstances, it is my view that the balance of convenience does not tilt in favour of the Plainti/Applicant.
It is my view that the said prayer is in the nature of a nal order which cannot be granted at this preliminary stage of the proceedings.
Issues in the judgment
#Paragraph numbering duplicated - two paragraphs numbered 4
Typographical run-together in key holding
Prayer referenced as (6) though listed as (f) in the application
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Korir v Chepkwony", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 72 of 2015. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6127/eng@2026-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.