Kapkomoi v Korir (Environment and Land Case E029 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 3231 (KLR) (26 May 2026) (Ruling)

Kapkomoi v Korir (Environment and Land Case E029 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 3231 (KLR) (26 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3231 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet Environment and Land Case E029 of 2022 GMA Ongondo, J May 26, 2026 Between David Komen Kapkomoi Plaintiff and Philomena Jelagat Korir Defendant Ruling 1.By an application dated 29th April 2026 the applicant/plaintiff, David Komen Kapkomoi through Jerobon Linet and Company Advocates, is seeking, inter alia, an injunctive order as well as an order of status quo at the time of institution of this suit be maintained over the suit land reference number Nandi/Ndalat Settlement/908 pending the hearing and determination of the application. 2.During inter partes hearing, Ms Jerobon Linet learned counsel for the applicant urged the court to allow the application as the defendant’s counsel was duly served. In the alternative, she urged the court to grant prayer number 4 for status quo order to preserve the suit land pending the response to and outcome of the application. 3.Ms Koech learned counsel for the respondents confirmed service of the application and sought seven days to file a response in opposition to the same. She stated that allowing the prayer 4 would amount to hearing and determining the application without response to it. Further, she was of the considered view that application be heard by way of written submissions. 4.In that regard, is prayer for status quo order alongside the proposed manner of hearing of the application meritorious? 5.It is common ground that the application was duly served upon the respondents’ counsel who opted not to respond to it to-date as observed in Festus Ogada vs Hans Mollin (2009) eKLR. Nonetheless, as the respondents’ counsel is ready to respond to the application, the same be filed and served within the next seven days from this date. 6.There be rejoinder, if any, together with submissions duly filed and served by the applicant’s counsel within seven days upon service of response and the application be heard by way of written submissions accordingly as provided for under Order 51 Rule 16 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010. 7.The respondents’ counsel to file and serve submissions within seven days upon service of the applicant’s submissions. 8.Besides, section 13 (7) of the Environment and Land Court 2015 (2011) empowers this court to grant interim preservation order in respect of a subject matter. Indeed, status quo is one of such orders. 9.It is noted that the application is for inter-partes hearing today. I am guided by Practice Direction Number 32 of this Honourable Court’s Directions, 2014 pertaining to status quo orders in such a situation. 10.In the foregone and in consideration of the character of the application, the circumstances and for the ends of justice. I find the application partially merited. 11.In the result, the application is partially allowed in terms of prayer 4 for status quo over the suit land. In particular, the register relating to the suit land shall not be altered hence, no sale, charge, sub division, transfer or in any manner dispose of the suit land pending the hearing and determination of the application. 12.The application is fixed for 17th June 2026 to confirm compliance including submissions and for further directions. 13.It is so ordered. DATED AND DELIVERED AT KAPSABET THIS 26TH MAY, 2026.G M A ONGONDOJUDGE Present;Ms Jerobon learned counsel for the applicant/plaintiff.Ms Koech learned counsel for the respondents/defendants.Mr Walter Kipkorir, Court Assistant.Signed by/for:G M A ONGONDOJUDGE