https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5162

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT CHUKA** **ELC CASE NO. E015 OF 2025** 1. **CHILLIWAK CHURCH OF GOD** 2. **CHILLIWAK PROPERTIES SPV LTD…PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS** **=VERSUS=** 1. **JACKSON RUGENDO MUKEMBU** 2. **BIBLE PATH MINISTRIES** 3. **JOYCE KAGENDO RUGENDO** 4. **HANINGTON KIRIMI RUGENDO** 5. **EDWARD MWENDA RUGENDO……DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS** **RULING** 1. Falling for determination in this ruling is the notice of motion application dated **18th December 2025**, filed by **Stanley Engelbrecht** [**the applicant**], seeking for the following orders; 1. ***Spent*** 2. ***Spent*** 3. ***A conservatory order be issued under the doctrine of lis pendens prohibiting and restraining the defendants, whether by themselves /or their agents, servants, employees or any other person from advertising for sale, alienating, transferring or otherwise dealing and or meddling with all the subject properties listed above in ELCLC case No. E015 of 2025 to preserve the subject matter pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.*** 4. ***Spent*** 5. ***The applicant be at liberty to apply for such further orders and/or directions as the court may deem fit and just to grant*** 6. ***The court to make further and alternative orders as necessary to not only meet the ends of justice, but to safeguard the subject matter of the application*** 7. ***Costs of the application to be in the cause*** 2. The application was brought under ***Article 40, 50 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, Section 1A, 2B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 76 and 101 of the Land Registration Act, Section 3 and 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, the inherent jurisdiction of the court and all enabling provisions of the law*** whilst premised on the grounds outlined and the strict averments deponed by the applicant in his two affidavits dated **18th December 2025 and 11th May 2026 respectively** 3. Upon service, a replying affidavit dated **21st April 2026 was filed contesting the orders.** Parties were directed to ventilate the application by way of written submissions which I have had sight of and considered. **THE APPELLANTS’ CASE** 1. The applicants’ case as submitted through the written submissions dated **23rd February 2026**, filed by **Mwaure & Mwaure Waihiga Advocates** was that, the ***1st applicant is a Christian church registered in Canada and carries projects in Kenya through the 2nd applicant as its agent.*** They contended that the ***2nd applicant is a private limited liability company registered in Kenya to represent the commercial interest of the 1st applicant that arises.*** The applicants further contended that the ***2nd applicant, vide an agreement dated 21st March 2018, agreed to purchase properties in its favor in trust for them under clause 15 of the agreement.*** They added that they remitted a substantial amount to the account of the ***2nd defendant between March 2018 and 2024.*** 2. The applicants added that in violation of the agreement, the defendants unlawfully converted the money for personal use of the **1st defendant** and purchased the properties in their name instead of the applicants' name. They stated that upon discovery of the breach of contract, they filed a suit against the defendants. The applicants further stated that unless the orders of protection are granted, their proprietary interest will be prejudiced. They urged the court to allow the application. **THE RESPONDENTS CASE** 1. The respondents, through the **1st respondent** contended he was the chairman of Bible Path Ministries and the **3rd to 5th respondents are his siblings.** 2. The **1st respondent** averred that the properties listed by the applicant are held in trust for the **2nd respondent and have not been disposed as alleged. The 2nd respondent** contends that the 1st respondent couldn't dispose of the properties since they would require the authority of the other officials as per the bylaws. He added that the applicants have not proved their allegation for sale and that he has been acting in good faith. 3. In respect to **motor vehicle registration No. KAV 340U,** the respondents contends that the same belongs to ***Hildah Rugendo and does not form*** part of the applicant’s property. Same position was stated in respect to the land parcels listed, which are claimed to be registered in the name of the **2nd respondent.** In totality, the respondents urged the court to dismiss the application as it beholds no merit **ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION** 1. I have considered the motion before me wholesomely, together with the responses and submissions filed by the applicant. What falls for determination in my view is whether or not, the application satisfies the criteria for granting a conservatory or interim order pending the hearing and disposal of the suit. 2. The relevant criteria that guide our courts when called upon to grant conservatory orders of this nature was outlined by the Supreme Court of Kenya in the case of ***Gatirau Peter Munya V Dickson Mwenda Kithinji******& 2 Others [2014] Eklr*** where the court held that: ***“Conservatory orders bear a more decided public-law connotation: for these are orders to facilitate ordered functioning within public agencies, as well as to uphold the adjudicatory authority of the Court, in the public interest. Conservatory orders, therefore, are not, unlike interlocutory injunctions, linked to such private-party issues as “the prospects of irreparable harm” occurring during the pendency of a case; or “high probability of success” in the supplicant’s case for orders of stay. Conservatory orders, consequently, should be granted on the inherent merit of a case, bearing in mind the public interest, the constitutional values, and the proportionate magnitudes, and priority levels attributable to the relevant causes.”*** 1. From the materials placed before this court, the applicants seek conservatory orders to be issued to restrain the respondent and their agents from dealing with the suit properties and to prevent their proprietary interest from being prejudiced. The applicants pleaded that the ***1st applicant is a Christian church registered in Canada and the 2nd defendant is their agent.*** They contend that they entered into an agreement dated **21st March 2018** to purchase properties in their favor to be held in trust for them as per ***clause 15 of the agreement.*** The applicants further stated that they remitted a substantial amount of money between ***March 2018 and 2024 to purchase the properties as per the agreement.*** They added that the ***defendants converted the money for their personal use and purchased the said properties in their names.*** 2. In the same breath, the respondents pleaded that the listed properties are held in trust for the ***2nd respondent and that they can not dispose of the properties as it would require the authority of the officials as per the bylaws.*** Given the above background, particularly reading through the apprehension filtering through the pleadings of the applicant, I am more persuaded to grant the conservatory order sought pending the disposal of the suit. The respondents in my view shall suffer no prejudice if the orders are granted especially considering the existing agreement guiding the conduct of parties before court and the respondent’s admission that disposing of the properties is untenable because of the existing structure and process 3. By and large, it is the finding of the court that the application under consideration meets the criteria for grant of a conservatory order, such as a status quo order that the applicants seek and thus proceed to allow ***prayers no. 3 and 7 of the application dated 18th December 2025*** 4. It is so ordered. **RULING IS DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 31ST DAY OF JULY, 2026** **L.T. LEWA** **JUDGE** **IN THE PRESENCE OF:** **PLAINTIFFS/APPLICANTS: Ms. Asilutwa** **DEFENDANTS/RESPONDENTS: No appearance** **COURT ASSISTANT: Mr. Musyimi**