[2025] KEELC 64 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of interim preservation orders. The applicants are in actual possession of the suit land and face imminent risk of harm through potential subdivision and eviction by the respondent. The respondent, having been served, did not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 64 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Daniel Kiplagat Tiony; Applicant: Musa Simatu Kipkerir; Applicant: Isaac Kiptum Karonei; Respondent: Ezekiel Rotich Barngetuny (Administrator of the Estate of Tabarngoror Kobot Rongoei - Deceased)
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case (Originating Summons) E009 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case Originating Summons / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction
- Outcome
- Application allowed; temporary orders granted as prayed in prayers (a) and (b); costs in the cause.
- Judges
- GMA Ongondo
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Status Quo Orders, Preservation of Property, Possession Disputes
- 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
Daniel Kiplagat Tiony
Applicant
Musa Simatu Kipkerir
Applicant
Isaac Kiptum Karonei
Applicant
Ezekiel Rotich Barngetuny (Administrator of the Estate of Tabarngoror Kobot Rongoei - Deceased)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Land Case Originating Summons / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Temporary Injunction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to temporary orders restraining the respondent from subdividing, partitioning, or surveying the suit land pending determination of the main suit.
- 2 Whether the status quo should be maintained to preserve the suit property until the main suit is heard and determined.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of interim preservation orders. The applicants are in actual possession of the suit land and face imminent risk of harm through potential subdivision and eviction by the respondent. The respondent, having been served, did not oppose the application. The court, guided by Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 13(7)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act, determined that the preservation of the status quo was necessary to prevent irreparable harm and to ensure the subject matter of the suit is not rendered nugatory. Accordingly, the court allowed the application and granted the temporary...
Court Disposition
Application allowed; temporary orders granted as prayed in prayers (a) and (b); costs in the cause.
Orders
- Temporary orders restraining the respondent, his servants, agents, relatives and/or assigns from subdividing, partitioning, or surveying land parcel No. Nandi/Kamoiywo/246 pending hearing and determination of the main suit.
- The status quo prior to filing this matter to be maintained pending hearing and determination of the main suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Tiony & 2 others v Barngetuny (Sued in his capacity as the administrator of the Estate of Tabarngoror Kobot Rongoei - Deceased) (Land Case (Originating Summons) E009 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 64 (KLR) (22 January 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 64 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet
Land Case (Originating Summons) E009 of 2024
GMA Ongondo, J
January 22, 2025
Between
Daniel Kiplagat Tiony
1st Applicant
Musa Simatu Kipkerir
2nd Applicant
Isaac Kiptum Karonei
3rd Applicant
and
Ezekiel Rotich Barngetuny (Sued In His Capacity As The Administrator Of The Estate Of Tabarngoror Kobot Rongoei - Deceased)
Respondent
Ruling
1. This ruling is in respect of an application by way of a Notice of Motion dated 28th October 2024 originated pursuant to, inter alia, Order 40 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 by the three applicants through Mutta Advocates LLP for;a.This Honourable Court be pleased to issue temporary orders restraining the Respondent, his servants, agents, relatives and/or assigns from anyway sub-diving, partitioning and surveying land parcel No. Nandi/Kamoiywo/246 (the suit land herein) pending hearing and determination of the main suit herein.b.The status quo prior to filing this matter be maintained pending hearing and determination of the main suit hereinc.Costs of this application be provided for.
2. The application is premised upon grounds (a) to (f) set out its face and the supporting affidavit of thirteen paragraphs sworn by the 3rd Applicant, Isaac Kiptum Karonei and the copies of certificate of official search annexed to the affidavit. Briefly, the Applicants allege that that they are in actual possession of 3. 5 acres of the suit land registered in the name of the Respondent who is in planning to conducting survey so as to sub divide and partition it with a view to evicting the applicants therefrom hence, they are likely to suffer harm thereby.
3. The respondent was duly served as disclosed in, among others, affidavit of service sworn on 4th December 2024 by an authorised process server, Robinson O. Getenga and the proceedings of 9th December 2024. Besides, there is no response to the application.
4. In that regard, is the application merited?
5. The applicants have sought interim preservation orders herein.
6. This court is guided by Order 40 (supra) and not unaware of temporary injunctive requirements.
7. It is well settled that status quo order is meant to preserve the suit property pending the outcome of the matter; see Ogada-vs-Mollin (2009) KLR 620.
8. Further, this court has the mandate to grant interim preservation orders including the orders sought in the application as provided for under section 13 (7) (a) of the Environment and Land Court 2015 (2011).
9. In the end, I find the application steadfast and meritorious. The same is hereby allowed in terms of 3rd and 4th prayers sought therein and as set out in paragraph 1 (a) and (b) hereinabove but costs be in the cause.
10. It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT KAPSABET THIS 22ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2025. GEORGE M A ONGONDOJUDGEPresent;Tallam D Learned Counsel for the ApplicantsWalter, Court Assistant