[2018] KEELC 3305 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 3305 (KLR)

The court found that all parties, including both plaintiff and defendants, had disobeyed the restraining orders issued on 24th November 2017 by ploughing and utilizing the disputed land parcels L.R. 8300 and L.R. 8301. The court, having visited the suit land, determined that contempt had been committed by all sides. However, given the family nature of the dispute and the risk of escalation, the court declined to impose punitive sanctions at this stage. Instead, the court restated and reinforced the previous injunctive orders, restraining all parties from further ploughing, arrowing, or utilizing the land until the suit is heard and determined. The applications for review seeking...

Citation
[2018] KEELC 3305 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Jackson Kiprotich Kibor; Defendant: Kipruto Arap Lelei; Defendant: Samuel Kiprono Samoei; Defendant: Tanguar Arap Suge; Defendant: Serei Arap Lel Nengit; Defendant: Chelule Keino; Defendant: Wesley Kimeli Sambai; Defendant: Wilson Kipkering Kogo; Defendant: Kiprotich Arap Kibiwott; Defendant: Gedion Kipruto Chemiron; Defendant: The Attorney General; Defendant: Elkana Kipleting Kibor; Defendant: Evans Kipkosgei Kibor; Defendant: Ezekiel Kipng’etich Kibor; Defendant: Erick Kipchumba Kibor; Defendant: Raymond Kibitok Kibor; Defendant: Kesenche “B”; Defendant: Kesenche “A”; Defendant: Edwin Kipkoech Kibor; Defendant: The Chief Land Registrar; Defendant: The County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu County
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
27 April 2018
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 94 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Land Dispute / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications for Injunction and Contempt, and Review of Status Quo Orders
Outcome
Applications for review dismissed; application for further injunctive relief allowed in part.
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Contempt of Court, Status Quo Orders, Family Land Disputes
Source Language
English
Land and Property Injunctions Contempt of Court Status Quo Orders Family Land Disputes

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jackson Kiprotich Kibor

Plaintiff

Kipruto Arap Lelei

Defendant

Samuel Kiprono Samoei

Defendant

Tanguar Arap Suge

Defendant

Serei Arap Lel Nengit

Defendant

Chelule Keino

Defendant

Wesley Kimeli Sambai

Defendant

Wilson Kipkering Kogo

Defendant

Kiprotich Arap Kibiwott

Defendant

Gedion Kipruto Chemiron

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

Elkana Kipleting Kibor

Defendant

Evans Kipkosgei Kibor

Defendant

Ezekiel Kipng’etich Kibor

Defendant

Erick Kipchumba Kibor

Defendant

Raymond Kibitok Kibor

Defendant

Kesenche “B”

Defendant

Kesenche “A”

Defendant

Edwin Kipkoech Kibor

Defendant

The Chief Land Registrar

Defendant

The County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu County

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land Dispute / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications for Injunction and Contempt, and Review of Status Quo Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants/respondents are in contempt of court orders restraining use of land parcels L.R. 8300 and L.R. 8301.
  2. 2 Whether the status quo orders issued on 4th July 2016 should be restored pending hearing and determination of the suit.
  3. 3 Whether further injunctive relief should issue to restrain all parties from utilizing the disputed land until final determination.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that all parties, including both plaintiff and defendants, had disobeyed the restraining orders issued on 24th November 2017 by ploughing and utilizing the disputed land parcels L.R. 8300 and L.R. 8301. The court, having visited the suit land, determined that contempt had been committed by all sides. However, given the family nature of the dispute and the risk of escalation, the court declined to impose punitive sanctions at this stage. Instead, the court restated and reinforced the previous injunctive orders, restraining all parties from further ploughing, arrowing, or utilizing the land until the suit is heard and determined. The applications for review seeking...

Court Disposition

Applications for review dismissed; application for further injunctive relief allowed in part.

Orders

  • All parties are restrained from further ploughing, arrowing, or utilizing the suit land parcels L.R. 8300 and L.R. 8301 until the suit is heard and determined.
  • Applications for review dated 6th March 2018 are dismissed.