https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3461

 ***REPUBLIC OF KENYA*** ***IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAROK*** ***ELC APPEAL NO E001 OF 2025*** ***KAURA ARAP BARNGETUNY…………1ST APPELLANT/APPELLANT*** ***JEREMIAH SITIENEI……………………2ND APPELLANT/APPELLANT*** ***JOHANA KOROS…………………………3RD APPELLANT/APPELLANT*** ***GEOFFFREY KOROS……………………4TH APPELLANT/APPLICANT*** ***VERSES*** ***JOSEPH KIPKURUI BETT……………………………1ST RESPONDENT*** ***LAND REGISTRAR, NAROK…………………….....2ND RESPONDENT*** ***AND*** ***GILBERT RUTO……………………………………NTERESTED PARTY*** ***RULING*** 1. This Appeal was filed on ***15th January 2025***, vide a ***Memo of Appeal*** even dated, which was accompanied by an Interlocutory Application of the same date, which was anchored under ***Order 42 Rule 6*** of the Civil Procedure Rules and ***Sections 1A and 3A*** of the ***Civil Procedure Act,*** wherein the Appellants/Applicants had sought for ***Orders*** of ***Stay*** of ***Execution*** of the Ruling delivered on ***18th December 2024***, by the trial court among other prayers. 2. The Court had on the first instance issued Orders of ***Status quo***, on ***17th January 2025,*** which orders brought protracted proceedings, that culminated in the filing of an Application for contempt of Court dated ***20th January 2025***. The two Applications were canvassed together, via written submissions, and this court on ***5th June 2025***, delivered its Ruling on both Applications, allowed the Application for ***stay of execution***, and dismissed the ***Application for contempt.*** 3. With the delivery of the above Ruling, the expected outcome was compliance with the said Orders, and/or the aggrieved party to either file an Appeal, and/or prepare the main Appeal for hearing. The Appellants/Applicants was directed to file the Record of Appeal, which directions were complied with, and the Record of Appeal was filed on ***3rd July 2025***. The prosecution and determination of the instant Appeal would definitely solve the underlying issues of whether the ***interlocutory orders*** of ***injunction*** issued by the trial court should stand or be ***dismissed*** and/or ***set aside.*** 4. The 1st Respondent herein as the Plaintiff before the trial court alleged that the Appellants herein as the Defendants had sold the suit property to him, being land parcel ***Cis Mara/*** ***Ilmotiok/169***, and he took possession. The Appellants on the other hand averred that the 1st Respondent has trespassed on the said suit land, and any title held by the 1st Respondent herein was acquired fraudulently. 5. The 1st Respondent as the Plaintiff in ***Narok ELC NO E069 of 2024***, filed a Notice of Motion Application dated ***15th July 2024***, and sought for temporary Orders of Injunction to restrain the Defendants thereon, who are the Appellants herein from dealing with the suit property ***Cis Mara/ ILmotiok/169,*** pending the hearing and determination of the suit before the trial Court. 6. The trial Court vide its Ruling ***18th December 2024***, allowed the said ***Interlocutory Application***, which in essence restrained the Appellants herein from dealing with the said suit property. Even with the issuance of the above ***interlocutory Ruling***, the main suit before the trial court is still pending, and the issue of who is the rightful owner of the suit property has not yet been determined. 7. However, the parties have taken more than one year litigating on ***interlocutory Applications***, pending the determination of the instant Appeal, and the suit before the trial court. Indeed, issues in dispute herein cannot be determined through ***interlocutory Applications***. Interlocutory Applications delay the hearing of the main suit, and clog the justice system. This court has been steadfast in urging the parties and encouraging them to resolve Interlocutory Applications through ***ALTERNATIVE DISPUTES RESOLUTIONS(ADR)***, so that the court can expeditiously deal with the main disputes, or mains suits, and for this matter the main Appeal. 8. Having laid down the above background, it is important for the parties before the court to obey the court orders, and their counsels who are officers of the court should advise them accordingly. If a party is dissatisfied with ***Court Ruling/Order,*** which court order is not ***suggestion,*** but a ***command,*** that ought to be obeyed or adhered to, then the remedy is to move the court that issued it for setting aside, and or Appeal to the superior court. 9. This court on ***5th June 2025***, delivered a Ruling, wherein it stayed the Ruling of the trial court dated ***18th December 2024***, and that meant, the 1st Respondent was to remain ***out*** of the suit land, until the Appeal is heard and determined. 10. The Appellants/Applicants have alleged that the 1st Respondent has defied the said orders of the Court, and consequently, they filed the instant Application dated ***2nd July 2025,*** which is the subject of this Ruling and sought for various prayers. 11. This instant Applicant is anchored under ***Sections 1A,1B*** and ***63(c)*** of the ***Civil Procedure Act***, ***Order 40 Rules 1, 2, & 3 Order 42 Rule 6, Order 51 Rule 1*** of the ***Civil Procedure Rules,*** and all the enabling provisions of the law. 12. The Orders sought are:- 13. ***That pending the hearing and determination of this Appeal, the court be pleased to issue a temporary injunction barring the 1st Respondent, his agents, assigns or persons acting under his authority from entering, trespassing and / or undertaking any further development on the suit property.*** 14. ***That the court be pleased to find that the 1st Respondent herein is in contempt of court for disobeying and / or willfully disregarding the orders issued on 5th June 2025.*** 15. ***That the 1st respondent herein be denied audience before this court until such time he shall purge the contemp.*** 16. ***That the court be pleased to issue such other or further or consequential orders for contempt of court as it may seem just and expedient.*** 17. ***That costs of the Application be provided for.*** 18. The Application is premised on the grounds that; this court on ***5th June 2025***, delivered a Ruling wherein it stayed the Ruling of the trial court dated ***18th December 2024*** in ***ELC No. E069 OF 2024***, pending the hearing and determination of this Appeal; thus the stay order of this court of ***5th June 2025***, had the effect of suspending the orders issued on ***18th December 2024***. 19. That after the Ruling, the Appellants/Applicants advocates served the 1st Respondent with the *cease-and-desist letter* on ***13th June 2025***, through WhatsApp number of ***07254331232,*** but the 1st Respondent accessed the suit property on ***13th June 2025,*** and commenced construction thereon by laying foundation of a permanent house. 20. It was the Appellants/Applicants further averments that the said Ruling of the Court was served upon the ***Officer Commanding Mulot*** ***Police Station***, but in defiance of the said Court order, the 1st Respondent accessed the suit land with the help of the Police. Further, that the permanent house is on the final stage of completion and the said action has caused tension among the parties herein. 21. The Appellants/Applicants claimed that they are poor peasant’s farmers who depend on this suit property for survival by farming on it, and being locked out of it has caused suffering and injustice to them, as the 1st Respondent is using law enforcement agencies to intimate them and force his entry into the suit land. 22. The Application is supported by the Affidavit of ***Kauria Arap Barngetuny*** the 1st Appellant/Applicant who reiterated most of the contents of the grounds in support of the Application, and contended that the actions of the 1st Respondent are in contravention of the Ruling and Orders of the court issued on ***5th June 2025***, and urged the court to allow their application. 23. The Application is vehemently opposed by the 1st Respondent ***Joseph Kirui Bett***, and the Interested party ***Gilbert Ruto,*** who urged the court to dismiss the instant application with costs. 24. In his Replying Affidavit, ***Gilbert Ruto*** averred that his advocate on record has explained to him the import of the instant application, and the Ruling of ***18th December 2024,*** which was to restrain the Appellants/Applicants from interfering with the suit property. He also averred that the 1st Appellant/Applicant is his uncle, and he was privy to the circumstance of this case, and he confirmed that the Appellant/Applicant and 1st Respondent entered into a sale agreement for sale and purchase of the suit land ***Cis Mara/ Ilmotiok/169***, and the 1st Respondent took possession of the suit land. That the 1st Respondent has been in ***continuous possession*** of the suit land since the time of purchase from the 1st Appellant/Applicant, and that the 1st Appellant is the aggressor. 25. He claimed that the 1st Respondent bought the suit land from the family regularly, and had been in ***open, regular,*** ***notorious*** and ***continuous occupation*** of the said land, and the 1st Appellant is lying to this court. He urged the court to dismiss the instant Applicant in the interest of justice. 26. The 1st Respondent filed a ***Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 11th August 2025,*** and averred that the Appellants/Applicants herein filed an Application for injunction without a ***substantive suit*** which is contrary to ***Sections 2 and 19*** of the ***Civil Procedure Act*** and ***Order 3 Rules 1& 2*** of the Civil Procedure Rules***: -*** ***ii) Further that the instant Application is in contravention of Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provides for stay of execution pending hearing and determination of the appeal.*** ***iii) That the instant Application is res judicata as it purports to canvass issues pertaining the use and occupation of the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the instant Appeal, which issue was raised and determined vide the ruling of this court dated 5th June 2025.*** ***iv) That the instant application is bad in law, incompetent, incurably defective and constitute an abuse of the court process, and ought to be dismissed with costs.*** 1. The 1st Respondent also filed ***Grounds of Opposition*** dated ***8th January 2026***, which are similar to the ***Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 11th August 2025***, and there is no need of reproducing the same. 2. The instant ***Notice of Motion*** ***Application*** dated ***2nd July 2025***, and the ***Preliminary Objection*** dated ***11th August 2025***, were canvassed together by way of written submissions. 1. The Appellants/Applicants filed two sets of written submissions through their advocates ***Tuya Kariuki& Co Advocates*** and urged the court to allow their application. The 1st set of written submissions is dated ***25th July 2025***, which set out three issues for determination being:- * 1. ***Whether the 1st Respondent is in contempt of the orders of this court dated 5th June 2025,*** 2. ***Whether the Appellants/Applicants are entitled to orders of injunctions to restrain the 1st respondent herein from developing on the suit land,*** 3. ***Who should bear costs of the suit.*** 2. Reliance was sought in various decided cases among them these cases; ***Samuel M.N. Mwera & Another vs National Land Commission & 2 other; -Teachers service Commission vs Kenya National Union of Teachers & 2Others (2013) eklr; Clarke & Others vs Chadburn & Others as cited in KGCA Vs Francis Atwoli & Others ; Fred Matiangi vs Miguna Miguna & 4 Others (2018) eKLR and Econet Wireless Kenya Ltd vs Minister for Information & Communication of Kenya & Another( 2005) eKLR*,** to support the prayers for contempt of Court. 3. On Injunctive relief, the Appellants/Applicants relied on the cases of; ***Giella vs Cassman Brown & Co Ltd. (1973) EA 358; Nguruman Ltd vs Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others eKLR; Pius Kipchirchir Kogo vs Frank Kimeli Tenai (2018) eKLR; Paul Gitonga Wanjau vs Gathuita Tea Factory Co Ltd & 2 Others (2016) eKLR and Amir Suleiman vs Amboseli Resort Ltd (20040 eKLR,*** and urged the Court to grant them the prayers for ***injunction.*** 4. On who should bear costs of this suit, the Appellants/Applicants relied on Section 27 of the ***Civil Procedure Act***, and the cases of; **Morgan *Air Cargo Ltd vs Everest Enterprises Ltd (2014) eKLR, R.vs Rosemary Wanjiru Karanja & Another Exparte Applicant ; Paul Kihara ( 2014) eKLR and Kenya Power & Lighting Co. Ltd vs Chris Mahinda t/a Nyeri Trade Centre ( 2014) eKLR*,** where the court emphasized that costs serve to compensate a successful litigant for the trouble taken to seek justice and deter frivolous litigants. 5. The Appellants/Applicants also filed another set of submissions dated ***5th February 2026***, through their Advocates on record in opposition to the ***Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 11th August 2025,*** and set out three issues for determination being:- 1. ***Whether the Application dated 2nd July, 2025 is incurably defective for lack of proper suit.*** 2. ***Whether the Application dated 2nd July 2025, which offends the provisions of Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.*** 3. ***Whether the Application dated 2nd July 2025 is Res-judicata.*** 6. The Appellants/Applicants relied on ***Sections 1A& 1B, 2,*** and ***3A*** of the ***Civil Procedure Act, Order 42 Rule 1*** of the ***Civil Procedure Rules,*** and also the cases of ***Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd vs West End Distributors Ltd(1969) EA 696; Kenya Shell Ltd vs Kibiru ; RWW vs EKW(2019) EKLR; and Henderson vs Henderson( 1843) 3 Hare 100* ,** and urged the court to dismiss/or strike out the 1st Respondent’s ***Preliminary Objection*** together with the Grounds of Opposition in their entirety for being an abuse of the court process with costs. 7. The 1st Respondent filed his written submissions undated through **Bett& Co Advocates** in support of his Notice of ***Preliminary Objection*** dated ***11th August 2025***, and in opposition to the ***Notice of Motion Application dated 2nd July 2025.*** 8. The 1st Respondent set out two issues for determination as follows: - 9. ***Whether the Preliminary Objection is merited.*** 10. ***If the answer is in the negative, whether the orders of injunction can be granted***. 11. In support of his submissions, the 1st Respondent relied on these cases***; Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co Ltd vs West End Distributors*** ***Co Ltd (Supra);*** ***IEBC vs Maina Kiai & 5 Others (2017)* *eKLR****;* and submittedthat the instant application is ***bad in law***, ***incompetent, incurably defective*** and constitutes an ***abuse of the court process***, and should be dismissed with costs. 12. On whether the prayer for injunctive orders is merited, the 1st Respondent submitted that the instant application has sought to ***overturn*** the Ruling of the trial court dated ***18th December 2024*** through an ***Interlocutory Application***, before the Appeal is heard and determined, which is ***tantamount*** to allowing the Appeal before the same is heard and determined, or sitting on its own Appeal against the Ruling of ***5th June 2025.*** The 1st Respondent urged the court to allow the ***Notice of*** ***Preliminary Objection*** and dismiss the Appellants/Applicants Notice of Motion dated ***2nd July 2026.*** 13. Though the ***Interested Party, Gilbert Ruto*** filed a Replying Affidavit in opposition to the ***Notice of Motion*** ***Application*** herein, he did not file any written submissions to support his averments, and the said Replying Affidavit will remain an averment, which has not been supported through submissions. 14. This Court has considered the pleadings herein together with the grounds for and against the Instant ***Notice of Motion Application,*** the ***Notice of Preliminary Objection*** and the rival written submissions, and the court finds the issues for determination are: - 15. ***Whether the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 11th August 2025 is merited.*** 16. ***Whether the Notice of Motion Application dated 2nd July 2025, is merited.*** ***iii) Who should bear costs of the Application and Notice of Preliminary Objection.*** * + 1. ***Whether the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 11th August 2025, is merited?*** 1. It is not in doubt that a ***preliminary objection*** is a formal challenge on a pure point of law which, if upheld, is capable of disposing of the entire suit or application without the need for a full trial on its merits. The ***case Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd (1969)*** remains the leading authority which describes a valid ***preliminary objection***, and the principles to be considered in determining ***Preliminary Objection***. To be successful, the Applicant or objector must meet these criteria, that the set out in the above landmark case of ***Mukisa Biscuits.*** 2. The Objection must be on ***Pure Point of Law***: The said Objection must be based solely on legal principles and not require the court to investigate or ascertain new facts. Further there should be ***No Contested Facts:*** The objection is argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the opposing side are correct. If any fact must be proved through evidence, it is not a pure preliminary objection There should be ***No Judicial Discretion:*** The Preliminary Objection cannot be raised if the court is required to ***exercise its own discretion*** to make a determination***.*** Further, if upheld, the said ***Preliminary Objection*** must be able to end the proceedings immediately. See the case of ***Gichuhi & 2 others v Data Protection Commissioner; Mathenge & another (Interested Parties) [2023] KEHC 17321 (KLR).*** 3. Again, the ***Preliminary Objection*** must be raised at the earliest Opportunity, to save judicial time and resources, though it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings. Such examples of Preliminary objections are; ***Lack of Jurisdiction,*** which Challenges the court's authority to hear the specific matter. ***Limitation of Actions***, wherein it is arguing that a suit was filed outside the legally prescribed timeframe (statute-barred). ***Locus Standi***, wherein the Objector argues that the party bringing the suit has no legal standing or capacity to sue. ***Res Judicata***, where it is argued that the matter has already been decided by a competent court. ***No Cause of Action***, by asserting that the pleadings do not disclose a valid legal claim. 4. The 1st Respondent’s Preliminary Objection is the assertion that the instant Application contravenes the provisions of ***Sections 2 & 19*** of the ***Civil Procedure Act***, and ***Order 42 Rule 6*** of the ***Civil Procedure Rules***, and that the said application is ***Res-judicata***. Contravention of the law is a pure point of law, and objection of ***Res judicata*** is a mixture of law and facts, but given that the objection herein is on an already delivered ruling of this court, then the court finds and holds that it a pure point of law. Consequently, the instant ***Objection*** fits the description of a valid preliminary objection as described in the ***Mukisa Biscuit’s case (Supra***). 5. Having found that the ***Preliminary Objection*** herein fits the criteria of an objection brought on a pure point of law, is the said objection merited? 6. The Objector/1st Respondent has averred that the instant Application seeks for injunctive relief without a substantive suit as anticipated in ***sections 2*** and ***19*** of the ***Civil Procedure Act***, which provide***; Section 2*** is on description of a suit; which means Civil proceedings commenced by which means; ***Section 19*** of the same Act provides,” ***Every suit shall be instituted in such manner as may be prescribed by rules.”*** 7. Further, ***Order 3 Rule 1*** of the ***Civil Procedure Rules,*** provides; (1) ***Every suit shall be instituted by presenting a plaint to the Court, or in such other manner as may be prescribed***. The above provisions of law describe institution of suits at the first instance which could either be by plaint or other manner prescribed by the law such as Originating Summons and others. 8. However, this is not a suit of the first instance, but an Appeal. The question in issue is whether an Appeal is a substantive suit. It is definite that an Appeal is not a substantive suit, but is a ***continuation*** of the ***original case***, and the original case herein before the trial court is a substantive suit; it is a continuation of the original case. Further, an Appeal is a legal mechanism to review the initial decision of the trial court on allegations of errors, rather than a fresh trial or a new claim. Though this Appeal is not an original suit, it is a continuation of a suit filed before the trial court as substantive suit and thus the 1st Respondent cannot argue that there is no substantive suit plaint. 9. The 1st Respondent argued that injunctive applications can only be sought in substantive suits, but not in appeals. However, it is trite that ***injunctive orders*** can be sought and granted during an appeal because an appeal does not automatically pause or stop the execution of the lower court's decision, and a party can apply for a temporary injunction to preserve the subject matter of the suit until the final appeal decision. See the case of ***Madhupaper International Ltd Vs Kerr (1985) KLR 840.*** 10. It is trite that a court can issue as ***injunction pending appeal*** on certain conditions, for an Applicant to be successfully in an application for injunction pending appeal, the appellate court will not look at the traditional criteria set out in ***Giella v Cassman Brown case***, ***(Supra)*** but instead, the applicant must satisfy a strict two-pronged test: being ; ***The Appeal Must be Arguable***: The Applicant must demonstrate that the intended appeal is ***not frivolous***. And it must raise at least one serious, legal question or factual error that deserves a critical review by the higher court. 11. Further, the Applicant must establish that the Appeal maybe ***Rendered Nugatory***: Therefore, the Applicant must prove that if the court refuses to grant the injunction, then he will suffer such severe, irreversible harm that even if the appeal succeeds later, that victory will be completely nugatory. See the case of ***Moses Meibako Ngatuny & 2 Others vs Peepei Ole Masoiko Kericho ELC Appeal No 3 of 2020,*** where the court held; “” ***An injunction can be granted pending an appeal so as to prevent the appeal being rendered nugatory in the event the appeal is successful”*** 12. Order ***42 Rule1(6)*** of the ***Civil Procedure Rules*** provides; ***Notwithstanding anything contained in subrule (1) of this rule the High Court shall have power in the exercise of its appellate jurisdiction to grant a temporary injunction on such terms as it thinks just provided the procedure for instituting an appeal from a subordinate court or tribunal has been complied with.*** 13. From the above provisions of law, it is evident, that this court in its Appellate jurisdiction has discretion to grant ***temporary injunction*** in an appeal, so long as the said Appeal is instituted through the right procedure. 14. The Appellants/Applicants filed this Appeal vide a ***Memo of Appeal*** dated ***15th January, 2025*** and have even filed a ***Record of Appeal***. This Appeal is continuation of the lower court suit, which is a substantive suit, and thus the Appellants/Applicants could rightly file an application for injunction in an Appeal such as this one. 15. On whether the Instant Application is ***Res-judicata*** as provided by ***Section 7*** of the ***Civil Procedure Act***, the court finds as follows. Res-judicata is a legal rule that stops a person from suing someone twice over the exact same issues. Once a competent court has heard a case and made a final decision, neither party can open a new case to litigate about that same issue again. See the case of ***Kenya Commercial Bank Limited v Muiri Coffee Estate Limited & another No 42 of 2014 [2016] eKLR.*** 16. The four conditions that must met for the objection of ***Res-judicata*** to succeed are; The former suit must involve the ***Same Parties***: The parties suing each other must be the same as in the first case. It must involve the ***Same Subject Matter***: The dispute or suit property must be the exact same as the one in the decided suit, It must involve the ***Same Title***: The parties must be suing in the same legal capacity, and there must be ***Final Judgment***: A court of competent jurisdiction must have decided the first case on its merits. See the case of Independent ***Electoral & Boundaries Commission Vs. Maina Kiai & 5 Others [2017] KECA 477 [KLR] [June 2017] Judgement.*** 17. The purposes of the doctrine of ***Res-judicata*** are; the Suit must be decided with a ***Finality:*** whichmeans litigation must come to an end; For ***Protection***: the doctrine stops parties from harassing their opponents with endless lawsuits. Further for ***Efficiency:*** the said doctrine saves the court's time and resources. See the case of ***John Florence Maritime Services Ltd & another v Cabinet Secretary Transport & Infrastructure & 3 others [2021] KESC 39 (KLR).*** 18. It is evident that on ***5th June 2025***, the court delivered a Ruling which stayed the Orders of ***temporary injunction*** issued on ***18th December 2024***, and directed the parties to maintain ***status quo***, by ***not selling or disposing the disputed property.*** 19. The instant Application is for ***temporary injunction*** to ***restrain*** the 1st Respondent from ***entering, trespassing*** and or ***undertaking development*** on the suit property, and not the same as barring him from ***disposing*** and/or ***selling*** the suit land. Further, the Appellants seek for contempt of the court Orders vide the Ruling of ***5th June 2025***. The earlier Application for contempt was in respect contempt of the ***status quo orders*** issued on ***17th January 2025.*** 20. The Prayers sought herein are not the same as the ones sought in the earlier Application dated ***17th January 2025,*** which application was determined vide the Ruling of ***5th June 2025.*** Thus, the Application herein is not Res-judicata. 21. For the above reasons, this court finds and holds that the ***Notice of Preliminary Objection*** dated ***11th August 2025***, is not merited, and the same is ***dismissed entirely*** with costs to the Appellants/Applicants herein. 22. On the merit of the ***Notice of Motion Application*** dated ***2nd July 2025,*** the Appellants/Applicants have sought for ***temporary injunctive orders*** to restrain the 1st Respondent from ***entering, trespassing*** and ***undertaking any development*** on the suit land. The 1st Respondent did not file any Replying Affidavit in opposition to the said prayers, but filed ***Grounds of Opposition***, which are similar to the ***Notice of Preliminary Objection*** dated ***11th August 2025***, ***Notice of Preliminary Objection*** has been dismissed by this court. 23. However, the ***Interested Party*** filed a Replying Affidavit, and justified the entry of the 1st Respondent unto the suit land. Vide its Ruling of ***5th June 2025***, this court stayed the temporary injunctive Orders issued against the Appellants/Applicants herein, and further held that the 1st Respondent ***was not in possession*** of the suit land. 1. In the suit before the trial court, the 1st Respondent has sought for an ***order directing the Defendants*** (Now ***Appellants/Applicants herein) to vacate the suit land***. That ***means that the Appellants/Applicants are in possession***, and it is evident ***the 1st Respondent’s orders for temporary injunction was stayed*** by the Ruling of this Court. 2. The 1st Respondent has not denied that he is putting up a ***development*** on the suit land, and has entered on the said land even with the orders staying the temporary injunctive orders in his favor having been stayed. The 1st Respondent is obligated to obey court orders, which are commands from court, and not suggestions or mere wishes. 3. It is trite that as provided by ***Order 42 Rule (6)*** of the ***Civil Procedure Rules***, courts have discretion to issue temporary injunction for ***purposes of preserving*** the suit property or ***status quo***. This court issued status quo orders on ***5th June 2025***, which the 1st Respondent has defied by putting up a development on the suit land. 4. The Appellants /Applicants needed to establish that they have an Arguable Appeal, and the said Appeal would be Rendered Nugatory, if orders of temporary orders of injunction are not issued. See the case of ***the SCOK App.*** ***NO. E020 OF 2024 JUDITH WANJIRU NJENGA vs MASTO HOLDINGS LIMITED& 4 Others; THE CO-OPERATIVE BANK OF KENYA (Interested Party).*** 5. Forthe above reasons, this court finds and holds that the Appellants/Applicants are deserving of ***temporary Orders*** of ***injunction*** pending Appeal as sought in prayers ***No 3*** of the instant Application dated ***2nd July 2026***. 6. On prayers ***Nos 4*** and ***5*** of the said Application, it is evident that the 1st Respondent is aware of the Ruling of this court that was issued on ***5th June 2025***, and has knowledge of the orders emanating from the said Ruling. However, he is in defiance of the said Orders and he did not dispute the Appellants/Applicants’ Application and assertion but only tried to have the said Application dismissed vide a ***Notice of Preliminary Objection*** which has been ***dismissed*** by the Court. 7. Relying on various decided cases, the court finds and holds that there is in existence ***valid court Ruling*** and ***Orders,*** which orders are commands from the court, and not suggestions, and should be complied with. See the case of ***Teachers Service Commission vs Kenya National Union of Teachers & 2 Others (2013) eKLR.*** 8. The 1st Respondent having defied the said ***Court orders,*** then he is in ***contempt*** of ***court,*** and this court will not grant him any audience until such time that he will purge the said contempt. See the case of ***Hadkinson vs Hadkinson (1952) 2 All 567*** 9. Consequently, this court finds and holds that the Appellants/Applicants prayers ***Nos 4 and 5*** of the instant Application are merited and the said prayers are also ***allowed*** ***entirely*** with costs to the Appellants/Applicants. 10. In a nutshell, having considered the Appellants/Applicants’ Notice of Motion dated ***2nd July 2025***, and the 1st Respondent’ Notice of Preliminary Objection dated ***11th August 2025***, the court finds and hold the said ***Notice of Preliminary* is not** ***merited,*** and the same is ***dismissed entirely*** with costs to the Appellants/Applicants. 11. In respect of the ***Notice of Motion Application*** dated ***2nd July 2025***, the same is found ***merited*** and is ***allowed entirely*** in terms of prayers ***Nos 3, 4 and 5*** with costs to the Appellants/Applicants. 12. However, the Court has noted that the parties herein have litigated this Appeal through various ***Interlocutory Applications*** at the ***expense*** of the ***main Appeal***. The Court urges them to desist from filing various ***Interlocutory Applications*** and ***concentrate*** on ***prosecuting*** the ***Appeal*** herein, which is an Appeal against a Ruling of an Interlocutory Application and not against the ***main suit***, which remains ***unprosecuted***. This court in its ***appellate jurisdiction*** will not entertain any other ***Interlocutory Application*** in this ***Appeal*** but will proceed to ***determine*** the ***main*** ***Appeal*** without any further delay. ***It is so ordered.*** ***Dated, signed and Delivered Virtually at Narok this 4th June 2026.*** ***L. Gacheru*** ***Judge*** ***4/6/2026*** ***Delivered online in the presence of.*** ***Elijah Meyoki - Court Assistant*** ***Ms. Mualuko holding brief for Mr. Tuya for the Appellants/Applicants.*** ***Mr. Kipkorir for the 1st Respondent and 1st Interested Party.*** ***L. Gacheru*** ***Judge*** ***4/6/2026***