[2025] KEELC 411 (KLR)
The court found that the multiple interlocutory applications filed by both plaintiffs and defendants had been overtaken by events, particularly in light of the status quo orders previously issued. The Deputy Registrar's ground report established that the suit property was not inhabited and that access had been...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 411 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Reuben Tinga Nyale; Plaintiff: Joseph Nyale Mwango; Plaintiff: Kassim Mwango Nyale; Plaintiff: Edward Kazungu Nyale; Defendant: Kiti Nyale Mwango; Defendant: Khamis Nyale Mwango; Defendant: Josephat Muchere Marete; Defendant: Land Registrar Kilifi; Defendant: Attorney General Malindi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 47 of 2023
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Originating Summons / Ruling on Multiple Interlocutory Applications and Status Quo Orders
- Outcome
- Pending interlocutory applications spent; status quo to be maintained until determination of main suit.
- Judges
- EK Makori
- Legal Topics
- Status Quo Orders, Interlocutory Injunctions, Joinder of Parties, Contempt of Court, Preservation of Property
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Reuben Tinga Nyale
Plaintiff
Joseph Nyale Mwango
Plaintiff
Kassim Mwango Nyale
Plaintiff
Edward Kazungu Nyale
Plaintiff
Kiti Nyale Mwango
Defendant
Khamis Nyale Mwango
Defendant
Josephat Muchere Marete
Defendant
Land Registrar Kilifi
Defendant
Attorney General Malindi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Originating Summons / Ruling on Multiple Interlocutory Applications and Status Quo Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the status quo on the suit property should be maintained pending determination of the main suit.
- 2 Whether the pending interlocutory applications for injunction, contempt, variation of orders, and joinder have merit in light of the current circumstances.
- 3 Whether the court should issue further orders regarding occupation or registration of the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the multiple interlocutory applications filed by both plaintiffs and defendants had been overtaken by events, particularly in light of the status quo orders previously issued. The Deputy Registrar's ground report established that the suit property was not inhabited and that access had been restricted by fencing and a gate, but there was no evidence of occupation or ongoing interference. Accordingly, the court held that the appropriate course was to maintain the status quo—meaning no occupation or change in registration of the property—until the main suit is heard and determined. All pending applications were deemed spent, and no further orders were made regarding...
Court Disposition
Pending interlocutory applications spent; status quo to be maintained until determination of main suit.
Orders
- The suit property shall remain uninhabited and its registration unchanged pending hearing and determination of the main suit.
- All pending interlocutory applications are deemed spent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
Nyale & 3 others v Mwango & 4 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 47 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 411 (KLR) (5 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 411 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 47 of 2023
EK Makori, J
February 5, 2025
Between
Reuben Tinga Nyale
1st Plaintiff
Joseph Nyale Mwango
2nd Plaintiff
Kassim Mwango Nyale
3rd Plaintiff
Edward Kazungu Nyale
4th Plaintiff
and
Kiti Nyale Mwango
1st Defendant
Khamis Nyale Mwango
2nd Defendant
Josephat Muchere Marete
3rd Defendant
Land Registrar Kilifi
4th Defendant
Attorney General Malindi
5th Defendant
Ruling
1. The court has diligently reviewed several applications filed by the involved parties. These include the plaintiff's application dated 27th November 2023 seeking injunction orders, the defendants' application dated 4th December 2024 seeking similar orders, the application dated 5th December 2023 seeking directions to preserve the suit property, the application dated 15th December 2023 seeking to have the defendants committed to civil jail for contempt, the application dated 19th November 2023 seeking to vary ex parte orders, issued by this Court on 6th December 2024(Njoroge J.)and the application dated 8th February 2024 seeking joinder of an interested party to this suit.
2. The Court reckoned that the parties had brought many applications, convoluting the matter.
3. On 14th November 2024, after reviewing the record, this court decided to deal with the application for joinder, allowing Sarah Wanjiru Macharia to be joined in these proceedings as an interested party.
4. The court reckoned that applications had been overtaken by events. Significantly, the court directed parties to maintain the status quo on the ground and no interference with the registration of the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.
5. On 17th December 2024, the parties requested this court review and deliver a ruling on the pending applications. I understand the importance of a fair and expedited process, and I believe, given the status quo orders, the matter should be set down for hearing and fast-tracked.
6. Given the many applications on record, this court, on 22nd January 2024, directed the Deputy Registrar to visit the site and prepare a ground report to guide the court in interpreting the status quo orders issued earlier by this court.
7. The report is dated 7th February 2024; among other things, it states:“The land is fenced using wire mesh. There is a green metal gate at the entrance of the property. The gate was not locked. Inside the property, there was no structure to show human occupation. However, building debris was a few meters after entering the compound. Wheel marks, possibly from a tractor, were visible on the ground.The compound contained trees, maize, and cut-down trees. A patch on the ground shows that burning occurred, and one shoe was present.In conclusion, there is no human habitation on the parcel of land. However, there is a clear indication that the property owner has restricted access by installing a gate and putting up a wire mesh fence around the property.”
8. The report depicts that the suit property is not inhabited. Therefore, the status quo orders that the court issued require the suit property to remain not inhabited and its registration to stay as it is until this suit is heard and determined.
9. Therefore, the pending applications will be spent in that manner, with no orders regarding costs.
DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI VIRTUALLY ON THIS 5TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2025. E. K. MAKORIJUDGEIn the Presence of:Mr. Lijoodi for, for the PlaintiffMs. Kamau for the 1st – 3rd DefendantsHappy: Court AssistantIn the Absence of:Ms. Apiyo, for the Interested Party