Mosop v Chuma & 3 others (Sued as administrators of the Estate of the Late Kiberenge Tuwei) (Land Case (Originating Summons) E017 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4814 (KLR) (27 July 2026) (Ruling)

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT ELDORET** ***(Coram: C.N. Ondieki, J.)*** **ELCLOS NUMBER E017 OF 2026** **BETWEEN** **SAMUEL ARUSEI MOSOP.......................................................APPLICANT** **AND** **KEYA CHUMA, ELIZABETH JEPKOECH SOY, KIPROTICH LIMO & KIMUTAI ARAP KOSGEI (Sued as administrators of the estate of the late Kiberenge Tuwei)……………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS** **RULING** **PART I: INTRODUCTION** 1. This Ruling is in respect to the Applicants’ Notice of Motion dated 26th May 2026. 2. Theoverriding objective - otherwise popularly known as the oxygen principle - of the Civil Procedure Act (hereinafter “CPA”) and the Civil Procedure Rules (hereinafter “CPR”); the Environment and Land Court Act (hereinafter “ELC Act”); Rules made under both the CPA and ELC Act; The Practice Directions on Standardization of Practice and Procedures in the Environment and Land Court, 2025 (hereinafter “PDELC”); is to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of the civil disputes governed by the said Acts. See section 1A(1) of the CPA; section 3(1) of the ELC Act; and Practice Direction 4 of the PDELC. 3. The framework for giving effect to the oxygen principle resides in the double-edged and symmetrical obligations reposed in both the Court and parties. On one hand, parties and their advocates, if any, are obligated to assist the Court to further the said oxygen principle by *inter alia,* participating in the processes of the Court and complying with the directions and orders of the Court. See sections 1A(3) of the CPA and 3(3) of the ELC Act. On the other hand, in striking a delicate balance towards attainment of the said oxygen principle, the Court is obligated to progress all matters committed to it for resolution for the purpose of attaining the just determination; efficient disposal; efficient use of the available judicial and administrative resources; the timely disposal thereof to keep in check inter alia the cost element of suits; leveraging suitable technology; and serving the ends of justice in this regard. See section 1B of the CPA; and Practice Direction 23(m) of the PDELC. 4. Accordingly, whenever a Court is construing any of the provisions of the CPA; ELC Act and Rules under both Acts, the Court is enjoined to always train its eye on giving effect to the said oxygen principle. See section 1A (2) of the CPA; section 3(2) of the ELC Act; and Practice Directions 4 & 23(m) of the PDELC. 5. The Constitution of Kenya and *The* *Social Transformation Through Access to Justice* Vision of the Chief Justice (hereinafter “STAJ”) desires a Judiciary that enforces corrective, transformative and justice-seeking reliefs. The Constitution thus recognizes the principle that Judges are not merely dispute resolvers but custodians of justice with the attendant duty to train their eyes on people-centred justice. 6. In this connection, through the lens of multi-door approach to justice, the said people-centered justice can equally be served through ADR. It will be recalled that STAJ and the Performance Management and Measurement Understanding (hereinafter “PMMU”) executed by this Court, anticipates determination of this suit **within one year from the date of filing.** Parties will certainly concur that this timeline is by all standards ambitious. This ambitious timeline translates that all parties must work round the clock, within ambitious and strict short timelines to be set by this Court and in accordance with the Overriding Objective of the civil procedure rules under sections 1A and 1B of the CPA and section 3 of the ELC Act (to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate, and affordable resolution of disputes). Each party and Advocate must thus discharge their obligation to assist this Court achieve the said Oxygen Principle. 7. Beyond Articles 60(1)(g) and 159(2)(c) of the Constitution, ADR is firmly erected on the firm foundation of Article 1 of the Constitution. Article 1 of the Constitution recognizes constituent power (that the people of Kenya can exercise their sovereign power directly or indirectly). 8. And so, provided that ADR is not applied in a manner that contravenes the Bill of Rights; repugnant to justice and morality; or results in outcomes that are repugnant to justice or morality; or is inconsistent with this Constitution or any written law*,* Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution - which provides that **“(*c*) alternative forms of dispute resolution including reconciliation, mediation, arbitration and traditional dispute resolution mechanisms shall be promoted, subject to clause (3)” -** enjoins this Court to promote ADR. 9. Further, special ADR attention is paid to land disputes through Article 60(1)(g) of the Constitution which makes provision for principles of land administration and management as follows: **“(g) encouragement of communities to settle land disputes through recognised local community initiatives consistent with this Constitution.”** 10. In addition, Practice Direction 7 of the PDELC obligates the Court to promote AJS. It further encourages parties to as far as possible, consider AJS. In addition, this Court may exercise its discretionary power to refer a matter to ADR under Practice Direction 23(k) of the PDELC. Besides, at any stage, the Court may refer a matter to ADR in accord with Practice Direction 25(f) of the PDELC. 11. How then is ADR invoked? The law provides that the Court may either on the motion of the parties or on its own motion where it deems it appropriate to do so or where the law so requires, direct that any dispute committed to the Court for resolution be referred to ADR. See section 59B of the CPA which provides that **“(1) The Court may — (a) on the request of the parties concerned; or (b) where it deems it appropriate to do so; or (c) where the law so requires, direct that any dispute presented before it be referred to mediation.”** Beyond mediation, the Court may direct that a suit be referred to any other method of ADR where the parties agree or the Court considers the case suitable for such referral. See section 59C of the CPA which provides that **“(1) A suit may be referred to any other method of dispute resolution where the parties agree or the Court considers the case suitable for such referral.”** **PART II: DIRECTIONS TOWARDS EXPEDITING HEARING OF THIS SUIT** 1. In furtherance of the oxygen principle, today, the 27th day of July 2026, a date appointed for directions on the said Application, this Court sought to understand the fear of the Applicant underpinning the Application and whether Respondents - and in particular the 4th Respondent who was the only one represented in Court - will suffer any irreparable prejudice if an Inhibition under section 68 of the Land Registration Act is registered, pending hearing and determination of this suit, to address the fear in the Application. 2. The highest fear in the Application is sub-division and transfer and that the process towards that end is underway. 3. In response to the inhibition proposal, learned Counsel Ms. Chepkwony representing the 4th Respondent opposed the proposal of an inhibition urging that the 4th Respondent has nothing to do with the 0.3 acres sought by the Applicant in the Originating Summons, which if proved, will be curved from the 0.4 acres share of the suit property entitled to the estate of Kiberenge Tuwei, which is represented exclusively by the 3rd Respondent and that if any inhibition must be issued, it should be directed against the 3rd Respondent only. 4. However, this Court noted and Ms. Chepkwony did acknowledge, that all the 4 Respondents were joint Administrators of the estate of Kiberenge Tuwei, and that under section 82 of the Law of Succession Act, all the 4 Respondents are jointly answerable to the suit since the said section 82 of the Law of Succession Act does not contemplate severability of the Respondents in the manner proposed by learned Counsel. Further, this Court noted that the current status of the property is that it has not been sub-divided, meaning that the respective shares of the Respondents so passionately submitted by learned Counsel for the 4th Respondent, are hitherto unidentifiable and in this context, this Court cannot issue an order against unidentifiable share of the suit property. 5. This Court underscores that ADR is essential in relation to such Applications, with a view of expediting hearing and determination of the suit in accord with the oxygen principle (as propounded under sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act; section 3 of the Environment and Land Act; and Practice Directions 4 and 23(m) of The Practice Directions on Standardization of Practice and Procedures in the Environment and Land Court, 2025). 6. Section 68 of the Land Registration Act (hereinafter “LRA”) provides that **“(1) The Court may make an order (hereinafter referred to as an inhibition) inhibiting for a particular time, or until the occurrence of a particular event, or generally until a further order, the registration of any dealing with any land, lease or charge. (2) A copy of the inhibition under the seal of the Court, with particulars of the land, lease or charge affected, shall be sent to the Registrar, who shall register it in the appropriate register. (3) An inhibition shall not bind or affect the land, lease or charge until it has been registered.”** 7. During the pendency of an inhibition, any instrument that is inconsistent with the inhibition shall not be registered. See section 69 of the LRA. 8. And finally, section 70 of the LRA provides that **“The registration of an inhibition shall not be cancelled except in the following cases — (a) on the expiration of the time stated in the inhibition; (b) on proof to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the occurrence of an event stated in the inhibition; (c) on the land, lease or charge being sold by a charge, unless such sale is itself inhibited; or (d) by a consequent order of the Court.”** 9. Upon carefully weighing the option of ADR against hearing and determining the said Application which may consume approximately 60 days, and upon judiciously considering the position taken by the 4th Respondent that the inhibition will prejudice him, and on the scales of balance of irreparable prejudice, this Court finds absolutely no irreparable prejudice will be suffered by the Respondents if an inhibition is registered for a limited and decidedly short period, to channel all judicial time and energy towards expediting hearing and determination of this suit, which direction is consistent with the oxygen principle. **PART III: DISPOSITION** 1. **Wherefore this Court issues an inhibition – under section 68 of the Land Registration Act and with the legal effect contemplated by section 69 of the LRA -pending hearing and determination of this suit, and specifically to expire on the date of the Judgment or on the date of any other final Order or decision to be rendered in this matter by this Court which conclusively and finally settles this matter.** 2. **The Land Registrar in charge of Uasin Gishu County is directed to register the inhibition within a period of 14 days from the date of service.** 3. **This inhibition shall be construed in accord with section 70(a) & (b) of the Land Registration Act – and shall thus be cancelled on the date of the Judgment or on the date of any other Order or decision of this Court which conclusively and finally settles this matter, upon proof to the satisfaction of the Uasin Gishu County Land Registrar of the occurrence of the Judgment or any other said Order or decision of the Court which conclusively and finally settles this matter - without the need of a consequent or subsequent Order of the Court contemplated by section 70(d) of the Land Registration Act.** 4. **This Order shall be extracted and served upon the said Land Registrar within a period of 3 days, by learned Counsel for the Applicant.** 5. **The Application dated 26th May 2026 is thus marked as settled.** 6. **The costs of the Application shall be in the cause.** **Delivered, Signed and Dated in ELC Eldoret this 27th day of July, 2026**  **…………….…………** **C.N. Ondieki** **Judge** **In the presence of:** **Advocate for the Applicant: Mr. Wainaina** **1st – 3rd Respondents: No Appearance** **Advocate for the 4th Respondent: Ms. Chepkwony** **Court Assistant: Ms. Chepkoech and Ms. Juma**