Tanui v Rono & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E003 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3341 (KLR) (2 June 2026) (Ruling)

Tanui v Rono & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E003 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3341 (KLR) (2 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3341 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E003 of 2026 GMA Ongondo, J June 2, 2026 Between David Kipkemboi Tanui Applicant and Paul Rono 1st Respondent Joseph Rono 2nd Respondent Petero Rono 3rd Respondent Ruling 1.The applicant, David Kipkemboi Tanui through Chelang’at Koskei and Company Advocates mounted an application by way of notice of motion dated 27th February 2026 seeking the principal orders, inter alia;a.That pending the hearing and determination of this Application, this Honourable Court be pleased to maintain the status quo obtaining on the ground in respect of the land parcels Nandi/Legemet/333 and Nandi/Legemet/334 (The 1st and 2nd suit parcels of land respectively herein).b.That, this Honourable Court be pleased to order the County Surveyor, Nandi County, or such other licensed surveyors as the court may appoint, to visit the 1st and 2nd suit parcels of land for purposes of re-establishing and determining the common boundary and to file a report in court within a period to be directed.c.That costs of this application be provided for. 2.The application is premised upon eight grounds set out on the face of the same which include that;a.The applicant is the registered proprietor of the 1st suit parcel of land and is legally entitled to peaceful possession.b.The respondents have encroached and prepared portions of the applicant’s land for cultivation without consent.c.Multiple attempts at amicable resolution through the Area Chief have failed, and the respondents have refused to participate in a boundary survey.d.There is a real and imminent risk of continued encroachment and irreparable loss to the applicant. 3.Further, the application is founded on the applicant’s supporting affidavit of fourteen paragraphs of even date and the annexed documents. He averred in part;a.That sometime in recent months, the Respondents unlawfully crossed the common boundary and encroached onto the applicant’s parcel of land, occupying approximately four (4) acres thereof as per the annexed copy of the photographs (DKT 3) showing the Respondents’ encroachment into the suit land.b.That, the applicant and respondents have made several attempts to resolve the boundary dispute amicably through the intervention of the Area Chief, Mr. Silas Tanui of Kapsos Location, but the Respondents have persistently refused to cooperate or attend meetings convened for that purpose as revealed in a copy of the letter dated 16th May 2022 by the Area Chief of Kapsos Location confirming existence of boundary dispute between parties herein and annexed to the affidavit. 4.The respondents were duly served with the application as discerned in the affidavit of service sworn on 8th April 2026 and the annexed licence herein. Therefore, the respondents were accorded an opportunity to respond to the application but failed to respond to the same 5.On that score, Ms Kiplimo instructed by Chelang’at learned counsel for the applicant stated that the respondents duly served failed to respond to the application. That the applicant is the registered proprietor of the 1st suit parcel of land while both the applicant the respondents possess and occupy portions of the same which ought to be preserved by the court. So, she implored the court to allow the application accordingly. 6.Clearly, the respondents were granted as per the affidavit of service referred to paragraph 4 hereinabove and the service is not contested; see Shadrack Arap Baiywo vs Bodi Bach (1987) eKLR. 7.Notably, this Honourable court has the powers to grant interim preservation orders inclusive of status quo pursuant to section 13 (7) of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015 (2011). 8.It is trite that status quo orders are meant to preserve the property in dispute pending the outcome of the matter; see Festus Ogada vs Hans Mollin (2009) eKLR. 9.Moreover, the court is guided by sections 19 and 20 of the Land Registration Act 2016 (2012) on the powers of the Land Registrar to determine boundaries. 10.Thus, the application is meritorious and the same is hereby allowed in the following terms;a.Pending the hearing and determination of this Application, the parties shall maintain the status quo obtaining on the ground in respect of the suit parcels of land namely Nandi/Legemet/333 and Nandi/Legemet/334.b.That, the Land Registrar Nandi County and the County Surveyor, Nandi County to visit land parcels Nandi/Legemet/333 and Nandi/Legemet/334 for purposes of re-establishing and determining the common boundary and to file a report in Court before 28th July 2026. In particular, there shall be no sale, sub division, transfer, charge or any manner of disposal of the 1st and 2nd suit parcels of land pending the final outcome of this application.c.This matter is fixed for 28th July 2026 to confirm compliance and for further directions. 11.It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT KAPSABET THIS 2ND DAY OF JUNE, 2026.HON. G M A ONG’ONDOJUDGEIn the presence of;Ms Kiplimo instructed by Chelang’at learned counsel for the applicant.Walter, Court Assistant.