https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3118

Chepleting (Suing as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Bakhit arap Magut alias Backhit Kisorio Magut – Deceased) & 2 others v Magut & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 38 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 3118 (KLR) (21 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3118 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret Environment and Land Case 38 of 2020 CK Yano, J May 21, 2026 Between Nuru Chepleting (Suing as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Bakhit arap Magut alias Backhit Kisorio Magut – Deceased) 1st Plaintiff Zechariah Godfrey Alushulla Muchere 2nd Plaintiff Alexander Musanga Musee 3rd Plaintiff and Rajab Kipkosgei Magut 1st Defendant Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu County 2nd Defendant Hon Attorney General 3rd Defendant Ruling 1.The 1st Defendant/Applicant filed a Notice of Motion dated 3rd December, 2025, against the Respondents seeking the following orders: -i.Spent.ii.Spentiii.That the honourable court be pleased to revoke the transfer of land parcel Nos. Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/633 and Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/634 from the name of RAJAB KIPKOSGEI MAGUT to the names of ABDIKARIM ISSE FARAH and JUDA KIPRONO respectively and/or to any such other 3rd Party to whom subsequent transfers may have been effected.iv.That the honourable court be pleased to revoke any subdivisions of land parcel Nos. Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/633 and Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/634 and the transfer of any such resultant titles upon subdivision to the name of any third party.v.An order of rectification of title be issued against the 2nd defendant directing her to rectify the register so as to revert the ownership of land parcel Nos. Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/633 and Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/634 to their original number and into the name of the 1st defendant/applicant.vi.That an order do issue against the 2nd defendant to attend court and show cause why they have refused, failed and/or neglected to register the inhibition issued by the court through the court order of 24.09.2020.vii.That summons be issued against the 2nd defendant to personally appear before this honourable court and show cause why he/she should not be committed to civil jail for such term as the court may determine for being in contempt of the court particularly for disobeying the court order of 24.09.2020.viii.That the 2nd defendant be cited for contempt of court and be committed to civil jail for such period as the court may deem just and/or be fined such sum of money as the court may determine until he/she purges her contempt and complies with the court order of 24.09.2020 and/or be ordered to purge the contempt on such terms as this court deems fit in the interest of justice.ix.That the honourable court be pleased to grant any such additional or alternative orders that this court may deem fit and just to grant in the circumstances.x.That the costs of this application be provided for. 2.The application is premised on 10 grounds on the face thereof and on the applicant’s Supporting Affidavit sworn on even date, the Supplementary Affidavit dated 09.02.2026 and a Further Supplementary Affidavit dated 17.02.2026 all in support of his application. 3.The applicant deponed that the plaintiff instituted the suit against him and the other defendants sometimes in the year 2020. 4.It is his claim that vide a court order issued on the 24.09.2020 by Hon. Lady Justice M.A. Odeny, the court ordered that there be no sale or transfer of the suit parcels of land pending the hearing and determination of the present suit. 5.Consequently, it is his contention that on diverse dates being 13.07.2020 and 26.10.2022, he made payments to the department of lands for purposes of having the court order issued on 24.09.2020 registered by the 2nd defendant as an inhibition against the titles of the suit parcels. 6.Pursuant to the said payments, he avers that he made several follow-ups to confirm whether the said inhibition had been registered. However, it is his contention that the 2nd defendant has neglected, failed and/or refused to register an inhibition on the titles of the suit parcels as per the order of court issued on 24.09.2020. 7.Further, that vide letters dated 18.11.2024 and 12.08.2025 respectively, he made another follow up on the registration status of the said order of the court and/or inhibition as well as informed the 2nd defendant that one of the suit parcels had been transferred to a third party despite the court order of 24.09.2020 prohibiting the same, but there was no response to the said letters. 8.It is therefore the applicant’s claim that the 2nd defendant’s refusal to register the inhibition against the titles of the suit parcels as per the court order issued on 24.09.2020 amounts to contempt of court and further puts the parcels of land at a risk of being disposed off pending the final determination of the suit. 9.The applicant further deponed that from the attached copies of the Green Card and the Certificate of Official Search, two of the suit parcels being Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/633 and 634 have already been transferred to third parties and title deeds issued thereto despite the orders of this court issued on 24.09.2020 prohibiting the same. The applicant blames the said action of transfer and subsequent registration on the inaction by the 2nd defendant and failure to register the inhibition against the titles of the said suit parcels. 10.It is also the applicant’s claim that in addition to the payment for the registration of the inhibition, he also made an application and made the requisite payments to have a caution registered against the 2 parcels of land No. 633 and 634 for purposes of preserving the substratum of the present suit. However, the 2nd defendant has once again failed and/or refused to register the said caution despite the payments having been made. 11.The applicant thus contends that the court order issued on the 24.09.2020 has never been set aside and/or reviewed by any competent court and is therefore still in force. 12.He avers that unless the application is allowed and the appropriate orders issued for purposes of preserving the substratum of the suit, the present suit may be rendered nugatory and the suit parcels may be disposed off to third parties who are not parties herein. He maintained that he stands to suffer irreparable damage and great prejudice. 13.In conclusion, he deponed that the application had been filed in utmost good faith and in the interest of justice and thus urged the court to allow the same as prayed. 14.The application was opposed. Both the plaintiff and the 2nd defendant filed their various Replying Affidavits in response to the allegations made by the applicant. 15.The plaintiff/respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn and dated 28.01.2026, in response to the averments made in the present application. 16.The plaintiff/respondent dismissed the present application as being fatally defective, incompetent, unprocedural, misconceived, devoid of merit, frivolous, vexatious, incurable defective, bad in law, abuse of the due process of court, misapprehension of the law and incapable of obtaining the orders sought therein. 17.The contents of paragraphs 2,3 and 4 of the Supporting Affidavit were admitted in regards to the order of the court issued on 24.09.2020 by Hon. Justice M. A. Odeny. 18.It was her claim that the 1st defendant/applicant was all along fully aware of the proceedings that precipitated in the registration of ABDIKARIM ISSE FARAH and JUDA KIPRONO as the registered owners of the suit parcels of land known as UASIN GISHU/Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/633 and UASIN GISHU/Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/634 on the 21.03.2023 and on the 09.11.2024 respectively and he cannot therefore claim that he was not aware of the same. 19.Further to the above, that the registration in favor of JUDA KIPRONO was pursuant to the proceedings known as Eldoret MCELC NO. 269 of 2018, between Juda Kiprono vs Rajab Kipkosgei Magut (the applicant herein) and Uasin Gishu Land Registrar instituted vide the plaint dated 18.10.2018 and amended on 16.12.2019. 20.She avers that the applicant herein entered appearance on the said suit vide a Notice of Appointment of Advocate dated 08.11.2018 filed by the firm of M/s Mathai Maina and Company Advocates and filed a statement of defence dated 15.11.2018 and amended on 14.01.2020. The plaintiff/respondent pointed out that it is the same firm of advocates that is also representing the applicant in the present suit. 21.That subsequently, the applicant herein, through his advocates on record in the said suit, participated in the said proceedings, and testified as DW1 and thereafter closed his case. 22.That the said matter was heard and determined vide the judgment delivered on 28.02.2020 in favor of the plaintiff therein Juda Kiprono. That the decree therein was subsequently issued on 14.07.2022, close to 2 years after the court order issued by M.A. Odeny J. on 24.09.2020, which facts were within the applicant’s knowledge and that of his advocate on record. 23.That consequently, the plaintiff in the proceedings known as MCELC NO. 269 of 2018, Juda Kiprono, filed an application dated 05.03.2024 seeking to have the Executive Officer, Eldoret Law Court, to sign the transfer forms on behalf of the 1st defendant herein in execution of the decree. That the said application was duly served upon the 1st defendant herein and his advocate on record M/s Mathai Maina & Company Advocates on 12.03.2024 but they did not oppose the same despite being aware of the orders issued by Hon. M.A. Odeny J. 24.That pursuant to the judgment and decree issued in the proceedings known as MCELC No. 269 of 2018, the 1st defendant herein lodged an appeal vide the proceedings known as Eldoret ELCA No. 8 of 2020. However, the said appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution by Hon. Justice S. M. Kibunja on 16.11.2021. 25.In respect to the registration of the suit land No. 633 in favor of ABDIKARIM ISSE FARAH, the plaintiff/respondent stated that the same was pursuant to the orders issued in the proceedings known as Eldoret MCCC MISC. NO. E021 OF 2023 between YUSSUF MOHAMMED YUSSUF and ABDIKARIM ISSE FARAH vs RAJAB KIPKOSGEI MAGUT (the 1st defendant/applicant herein) vide Originating Summons dated 09.02.2023. 26.That the 1st defendant herein once again entered appearance in the said suit vide Notice of Appointment of Advocates filed by the same firm of advocates M/s Mathai Maina & Company Advocates dated 02.03.2023 and filed a Replying Affidavit to the Originating Summons dated 14.03.2023. 27.That the 1st defendant herein fully participated in the proceedings known as Eldoret MCCC MISC. NO. E021 OF 2023, through the same firm of advocates, who are still representing him in the present proceedings. That the same was heard and determined vide the ruling delivered on 26.06.2023 and decree issued on 31.10.2023. 28.It is therefore the plaintiff/respondent’s contention that the 1st defendant/applicant herein and/or his advocate on record had a duty before the various subordinate court, to inform the various courts of the existence of the order of injunction issued by Hon. Justice M. A. Odeny on 24.09.2020, issued by a superior court and which are still active to date, but they failed to discharge this duty. 29.Be that as it may, the plaintiff/respondent avers that the orders issued by Hon. Justice M. A. Odeny on 24.09.2020 not having been set aside and/or set aside are still in force and therefore any registration touching on the suit parcels of land are null and void, and have no legal effect whatsoever since the same were prohibited from transfer. 30.She thus admitted that the transfers and subsequent registrations of parcel land Nos. 633 and 634 in favor of third parties are a nullity as they were done pursuant to a subordinate court orders and/decrees despite an order of a superior court being active and in effect. 31.To the contrary, it is her contention that upon the determination of the present suit to its conclusion, the said irregularity and/or nullity shall be corrected and thus the present application ought to be dismissed with costs to the plaintiff as a matter of right and justice. 32.In conclusion, the plaintiff/respondent maintained that the 1st defendant/applicant was fully aware of this court’s order issued on 24.09.2020 by Hon. Justice M. A. Odeny when he actively participated in the subordinate court matters to wit; MCELC NO. 269 OF 2018, MCELC NO. 270 OF 2018 and Eldoret MCCC MISC. NO. E021 OF 2023 as well as the appeal lodged vide ELCA NO. 8 OF 2020, prior to the transfer and subsequent registration of the 2 suit parcels to third parties but chose not to disclose the same to the various courts. 33.She dismissed the present application as being a delay tactic on the part of the 1st defendant/applicant and thus urged the court to dismiss the present application with costs. 34.The 1st plaintiff/respondent duly served her replying affidavit upon the 1st defendant/applicant, who filed a Supplementary Affidavit sworn and dated 09.02.2026. 35.In his Supplementary Affidavit, the 1st defendant/applicant dismissed the 1st plaintiff’s replying affidavit as being frivolous, vexatious and misleading and the same should therefore be disregarded. 36.He reiterated that the main reason why the transfer and subsequent subdivision and registration of the two parcels of land to third parties took place was due to the 2nd defendant’s inaction contrary to the provisions of section 68(3) of the Land Registration Act, which requires all inhibitions to be duly registered for the same to be binding and/or effective. 37.He maintained that the transfer, subdivision and registration of the two parcels of land to the third parties pending the final determination and in disregard to the court order of 24.09.2020 was something beyond him. That even though he did all he could within his means, the 2nd defendant failed, refused and/or neglected to act but instead chose to honor the subordinate court’s orders of transfer. 38.On the allegations of delay as averred by 1st plaintiff/respondent, it was his contention that justice should not be sacrificed at the altar of expediency. It is also his claim that his advocate on record is M/s Awuor Otieno DM & Associates Advocates. 39.He also reiterated that proceeding with the hearing and determination of the suit while some of the suit parcels of land have already been registered to third parties will occasion injustice and great prejudice. 40.It was his claim that the present application purely seeks to have the suit parcels of land restored back to their initial positions and to have the court order issued on 24.09.2020 registered by the 2nd defendant. That the orders sought herein are for the benefit of all parties and will endure that the subject matter of the suit is preserved. 41.Further, he averred that none of the plaintiffs/respondents have demonstrated and/or explained the prejudice they are likely to suffer, if any, should the orders sought in the present application be granted. 42.In conclusion, he reiterated that the present application has been filed in utmost good faith and the same should be allowed in the interest of justice. 43.The 2nd defendant/respondent filed a Replying Affidavit dated 10.02.2026 and sworn by one Alice B. Gisemba, the County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu County, duly appointed under the Land Registration Act. 44.She stated that the subject matter of the application is in respect to the parcel of land known as Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/633, which was a subdivision from parcel number Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/61. That the suit land No. 633 was first registered in the names of Rajab Kipkosgei Magut on 26.11.2009 and title issued thereto on 10.12.2009. 45.She confirmed that on 24.09.2020, Hon. Lady Justice M. Odeny, issued interim injunctive orders against the 1st defendant/Applicant, barring him by himself, servants, employee and or otherwise from transferring, auctioning, charging, dealing, interfering, advertising for sale disposing of or in any other manner interfering with the suit property herein known as Uasin Gishu Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/61, fraudulently transferred to the names of the 1st defendant. 46.That the court further barred the 1st defendant from transferring auctioning, charging, dealing, interfering, advertising for sale, disposing of or in any other manner interfering with the subdivisions arising from the above parcel No. Uasin Gishu Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/ 631, 633, 634, 635,636,816,817,818,819,820,821,822,823,824,825,826,827,828,829,830,927 and 928 which parcels formed part of the estate of the late Backhit Arap Magut. She however maintained that the above orders were never served upon the Land Registrar as alleged. 47.She further explained that on or about 29.11.2023, an order was registered by the Land Registrar pursuant to a court order issued in Eldoret CMC ELC MISC Application No. E021of 2023 whose effect was that the respondent (1st Defendant herein) was required to execute transfer documents and transfer parcel No. 633 to one Abdikarim Isse Farah. In default thereto, the Land Registrar was to effect the said transfer and issue title thereto in favor of the said Abdikarim Isse Farah.The same was done pursuant to the order of the court and the parcel registered in the name of Abdikarim Isse Farah, who is the current owner. 48.With regards to the parcel of land known as Chepsaita Settlement Scheme/634, that the same was first registered in the names of Rajab Kipkosgei Magut on 26.11.2009 and title issued thereto on 10.12.2009. 49.That however, a restriction was placed against the said title by one Mariam Rajab on 09.05.2018, until family issues were resolved and settled. That on 21.07.2024, the restriction was removed vide court order dated 14.07.2022 issued in ELD CM ELC No. 269 of 2018 Juda Kiprono v Rajab Kipkosgei Magut. 50.That subsequently, the said parcel No. 634 was transferred to Juda Kiprono on 09.11.2024 pursuant to the decree issued by the court in ELD CM ELC No. 269 of 2018 on 27.03.2024. 51.It was her claim that the 1st defendant/applicant only wrote to the Land Registrar on 18.11.2024 asking the Land Registrar to register the court order issued on 24.09.2020. She maintained that was never personally served with the alleged court order as required in law and further deponed that the Applicant has neither demonstrated personal service upon her nor produced an affidavit of service evidencing proper service. 52.It was her contention that the 1st defendant fully participated throughout the proceedings in the subordinate court and did not raise any issue or objection to the subordinate court issuing the impugned orders and bring to the attention of the court the existence of the orders issued on 24.09.2020. 53.In response to the allegations of contempt of court made against her, it was her claim that it is a settled principle of law that a party cannot be punished for contempt unless the order is clear and unambiguous, the order is personally served and a penal notice is endorsed on the order. 54.She maintained that the alleged order of 24.09.2020 annexed by the Applicant was never brought to her attention and she only became aware of the existence of the said order after the filing of the present application. 55.It is therefore her contention that she could not obey an order which she was not aware of, that the same was neither served nor were the terms thereto communicated to her. 56.It is further her claim that the alleged court order of 24.09.2020 is vague, uncertain and incapable of compliance as it does not clearly state what specific act she was required to perform and/or refrain from. 57.She thus avers that the Applicant has misinterpreted the court order and is attempting to enforce obligations that were never directed by the Court to the Land Registrar. 58.The 2nd defendant/respondent therefore deponed that she has never deliberately, wilfully, or knowingly disobeyed any lawful order of this Honourable Court as alleged and maintained that she has always respected this Honourable Court and remain ready and willing to comply with any lawful directions issued by the Court. 59.In conclusion, she urged the court to dismiss the present application with no orders as to costs as the 2nd defendant has at all material times acted in good faith and within the law. 60.The 2nd defendant/respondent served their replying affidavit upon the 1st defendant/applicant, who filed a Further Supplementary Affidavit dated 17.02.2026 in response to the averments made in the replying affidavit. 61.In his Further Supplementary Affidavit, the 1st defendant/applicant dismissed the 2nd defendant’s replying affidavit as misleading, incompetent, frivolous, vexatious and filed in bad faith in an attempt to cover up the inactions by the 2nd defendant. 62.It was his contention that contrary to the allegations raised by the 2nd defendant at paragraph 5 of the Replying Affidavit, the court order issued on 24.09.2020, order No. 2 therein stated that; "THAT there shall be no sale or transfer of the suit land pending the hearing and determination of the case," which in essence meant that none of the parties to the suit herein was to do any of the above including the 2nd defendant, which is responsible for effecting such transfers. He thus maintained that the 2nd defendant cannot allege that the said orders were vague and ambiguous in relation to the 2nd defendant. 63.He thus averred that the 2nd defendant must own up to her unlawful actions of authorizing the transfer of the suit parcels to third parties contrary to the court order of 24/9/2020. 64.On the claims made by the 2nd defendant of not being aware of the existence of the orders issued on 24.09.2020 nor the terms thereof, it was his claim that the 2nd defendant cannot be seen to be alleging that they were unaware of the said court order, when from the face of the extracted court order, it is clearly indicated that Ms. Tigoi was present as counsel for the 2nd and 3rd defendants when the order was issued. 65.In addition to the averments above, it is further his claim that from the annexures marked RKM- 2(a-c) in the supporting Affidavit, it is evident that he took the court order to the 2nd defendant who assessed the same for purposes of billing and upon payment of the requisite fees he was issued with the payment receipts for the registration. 66.He reiterated that despite the 2nd defendant having knowledge of the said court order, the 2nd defendant deliberately failed, neglected and/or refused to register the court order against the titles thus making the court order ineffective and to the contrary authorized the registration of the title deeds in the names of third parties despite the terms of the court orders of 24.09.2020. 67.It was also the 1st defendant/applicant’s contention that the 2nd defendant has not bothered to explain to this honourable court her reasons for failure to register the court order which remains unregistered to date despite the requisite payments having been made. He maintained that this lack of explanation is proof of the 2nd defendant’s defiance in complying with this court's order. 68.In response to the paragraph 11 of the 2nd defendant’s replying affidavit, he dismissed the averments thereon and reiterated he has on several occasions visited the offices of the 2nd defendant to follow up on registration of the court order and their reasons for the none compliance but all were in vain. That the letter of 18.11.2024 being referred to was only a further follow up. 69.He maintained that the transfer and subsequent registration of the 2 suit parcels in the names of third parties in breach of an existing court order is as a result of the 2nd defendant's failure to register the court order. 70.In view of the foregoing, it was his assertion that it is in the interest of justice and fairness that the 2nd defendant be cited for contempt of court and be summoned to court to show cause why she should not be held in contempt for failure to register the court order despite knowledge of the same, payment of the requisite fees thereto for the registration and also why she authorized the registrations to third parties while well aware that there was an inhibition order issued by this honourable court. 71.In conclusion, the applicant deponed that unless the present application is allowed and the appropriate orders issued, the 2nd defendant may continue to be in breach of this court's order. 72.This court issued directions that the present application be canvassed by way of written submissions. The 1st Defendant/applicant filed his submissions dated 10.02.2026 together with authorities, which I have read and considered. However, from a perusal of the court record as well as the online filing platform, CTS, there were no submissions filed by either the 1st plaintiff/respondent or the 2nd defendant/respondent at the time of writing this ruling. Be that as it may, this court will proceed to render its decision as hereunder. Analysis and Determination 73.I have carefully considered the Application and the grounds therein, the Supporting Affidavit, Supplementary Affidavit and Further Supplementary Affidavit and the annexures thereto, the replying affidavits by the 1st plaintiff and the 2nd defendant respectively in response to the application as well as the applicant’s submissions in totality. 74.Consequently, it is my considered view that the issues arising for determination are as follows: -i.Whether the orders sought in the present application are tenable in the circumstancesii.Whether the applicant has proved his case to warrant the grant of an order of revocation and rectification of title in the nature sought.iii.Whether the 2nd defendant can and/or should be cited for contempt of the court orders issued on 24.09.2020iv.Whether the present application is merited.v.Who shall bear the costs of the present Application. 75.The above issues for determination having been duly identified, I will now proceed to discuss the same as hereunder. Whether the orders sought in the present application are tenable in the circumstances 76.The 1st defendant/applicant herein has sought the revocation of the transfer of the suit parcels of land Nos. 633 and 634 from his name to the names of Abdikarim Farah and Juda Kiprono, the revocation of any subdivision of parcels Nos. 633 and 634 respectively as well as the rectification of the title to revert the ownership of the said parcels of land to his name, an order for contempt of court as well as costs of the present application. 77.It is common ground that there is an order of temporary injunction issued by this court (differently constituted) by Hon. M.A. Odeny J. on 24.09.2020. The said order has never been reviewed, set aside and/or vacated by this court and/or any superior court on appeal and therefore remains an active order of the court. 78.It is also not in dispute that the transfers and registration of parcel Nos. 633 and 634 were done pursuant to orders issued by subordinate courts in various proceedings; to wit, Eldoret MCELC NO. 269 of 2018 and Eldoret MCCC MISC. NO. E021 OF 2023. 79.Eldoret MCELC NO. 269 of 2018 between Juda Kiprono and the 1st defendant herein, was heard and determined vide a judgment issued on 28.02.2020 and a Decree thereto issued on 14.07.2022. The effect of the judgment therein was to order the transfer the parcel of land No. 634 in favor of the said Juda Kiprono by the 1st defendant herein. 80.The above decision was appealed against vide Eldoret ELCA NO. 8 of 2020 which was however dismissed for want of prosecution on 16.11.2021 by Hon. S.M. Kibunja J. 81.On the other hand, Eldoret MCCC MISC. NO. E021 OF 2023 between Abdikarim Farah & Anor and the 1st defendant herein, was also heard and determined vide the Ruling issued 26.06.2023 and a subsequent Decree issued on 31.10.2023. The effect of the said ruling was to allow the transfer the parcel of land No. 633 in favor of the said Abdikarim Farah by the 1st defendant herein. 82.The said orders, diversely issued by the various subordinate courts were executed, and in effect, the suit parcels Nos. 633 and 634 were duly transferred from the name of the 1st defendant herein and registered in the names of the decree holders; Abdikarim Farah and Juda Kiprono respectively. 83.The applicant in his present application thus seeks to have the court issue an order of revocation of the said transfers, which were effected in the execution of a valid Decree issued by a competent court exercising its jurisdiction in determining the dispute between the parties therein and to further issue an order of rectification of the titles to revert in his name. 84.The question that therefore follows is whether the said orders as sought are tenable in view of the circumstances of the case. 85.My answer to the above is in the negative. 86.First, it is evident from the prayers in the present application that the orders sought are against one Abdikarim Farah and Juda Kiprono and the same seeks to have the transfer, the registration in their favor and subsequent title deeds issued thereto in their names be revoked and rectified. The said persons, Abdikarim Farah and Juda Kiprono are not parties in the present suit. 87.It is a settled and fundamental principle of law and natural justice that a court of law cannot issue substantive orders against persons who are not parties in the suit and/or dispute before it. This is for the main reason that issuing the said orders would amount to condemning the said persons unheard and violating their constitutional right to be heard. 88.The orders sought herein seeks to revoke the transfer and cancel the title deeds issued to the said Abdikarim Farah and Juda Kiprono without according them an opportunity to ventilate their case and be heard on the merits thereto. For this reason, this court finds that the orders sought in the present application are untenable. 89.Secondly, from the rival position presented by the parties herein, it is evident that the said decisions and resultant decrees issued by the subordinate courts, in lawful exercise of their jurisdiction, are valid and active orders, which have neither been set aside, varied nor reviewed on appeal. 90.The effect of the orders sought herein in essence seeks to set aside, review and/or vary the said decisions issued by the said subordinate courts through the backdoor, vide an interlocutory application in the nature herein without lodging an appeal. 91.Thirdly, it is clear from the facts presented herein as well as the annexures provided in support of the rival claims that the judgment in Eldoret MCELC NO. 269 OF 2018, and which gave rise to the transfer of the parcel of land known as No. 634 in favor of Juda Kiprono was issued on 28.02.2020. The temporary injunctive orders issued by Hon. Justice M. A. Odeny were issued on 24.09.2020. 92.It is therefore evident that by the time the orders of temporary injunction were being issued by this court, differently constituted, the judgment in favor of Juda Kiprono had already been issued almost 7 months prior. Even though the decree was extracted much later, it is common ground that the said decree flowed/resulted from the said judgment. 93.It cannot therefore be said that the transfer and the subsequent registration of parcel No. 634 in favor of Juda Kiprono in execution of the decree issued in Eldoret MCELC NO. 269 OF 2018 was in contravention of the orders issued by this court on 24.09.2020. 94.Finally, from a critical evaluation of the annexures provided by the various parties, it is important to note that the 1st defendant herein, who was also a party in the subordinate court proceedings outlined hereinabove, was duly represented by the same advocate who is representing him in the present suit, M/S Mathai Maina & Co. Advocates, and he fully participated in the said proceedings. 95.Save for the proceedings in Eldoret MCELC NO. 269 OF 2018, which was determined vide a judgment delivered on 28.02.2020, prior to the order of this court of 24.09.2020, the 1st defendant and/or his counsel was under a duty to inform the said court of the existence of the proceedings in the present suit, touching on the same subject matter as well as the existence of the orders of temporary injunction, barring any transfer, subdivision among others of the subject land No. 633. The same was not done. 96.The 1st defendant has instead majorly blamed the transfer and registration in favor of Abdikarim Farah and Juda Kiprono on the 2nd defendant. This in my considered view, is not the accurate position. 97.Taking the totality of the foregoing, this court finds that the orders sought in the present application are not tenable in the circumstances. 98.Consequently, it is my considered finding that the application lacks merit and the same therefore ought to be dismissed. 99.Having held that the orders sought herein are untenable in the circumstances, this court finds that discussing issues Nos. (ii) and (iii) would amount to an academic exercise and the same are therefore abandoned. Whether the present application is merited; 100.In view of the findings in issue No. (i) above, this court finds that the present application is not merited and the same should therefore be dismissed with costs. Who shall bear the costs of the present Application 101.The general rule is that costs shall follow the event in accordance with the proviso to section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, unless the court is satisfied otherwise. 102.In the present case, having held that the present application is not merited, this court finds that the 1st plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are entitled to the costs of defending the present application. Conclusion: 103.The upshot of the above is that the present application vide the Notice of Motion dated 3rd December, 2025 is not merited and is hereby dismissed with costs to the 1st plaintiff/respondent and the 2nd defendant/respondent. 104.However, for purposes of safeguarding the substratum of the suit herein and to further ensure that the orders issued herein are not issued in vain, this court seeks to reiterate the Orders issued by Hon. Lady Justice M. A. Odeny on 24.09.2020 as hereunder;“Interim Orders granted in terms of prayer (c) of the application. there shall be no sale or transfer of the suit land pending the hearing and determination of the case” 105.Parties be and are hereby warned and/or restrained against further alienation, selling, erecting permanent structures pending the hearing and determination of the present suit. 106.Parties be and are hereby further directed to strictly comply with the said orders pending the hearing and determination of the present suit. 107.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2026.HON. C. K. YANOJUDGERuling delivered in the presence of: -Mr. Isiji for 1st plaintiffs.Mr. Rotich & Ms. Metto holding brief for the 1st defendant.Mr. Kwame for the 2nd & 3rd defendants.Mr. Otieno for 2nd Interested party.No appearance for 1st Interested party.Court Assistant – Laban