SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Tireito v Lagat & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 441 of 2012) [2025] KEELC 6213 (KLR) (25 September 2025) (Ruling)

[2025] KEELC 6213 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
6213
Citation
[2025] KEELC 6213 (KLR)
Decided
25 September 2025
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypeLand DisputePostureAppeal from a previous rulingCoramCK YANO, Obaga, Onyango, Sila Munyao
The Plainti/ Applicant’s Notice of Motion is dismissed with costs to the Defendants/Respondents

Facts

Joseph Tireito sued Jacob Lagat and others for trespassing and damages. A consent order was recorded, and a judgment was delivered granting Tireito 2.5 acres from Luliet 2. The 2nd and 3rd Respondents appealed, but their appeals were dismissed. Tireito then filed an application for beacons and document signing, which was dismissed.

Issues

  • Whether to grant a stay of execution of the previous ruling pending the appeal
  • Whether to order the placement of beacons and document signing

Reasoning

The Court dismissed the application as it was a negative order incapable of execution and the court cannot order a stay of execution.

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion dismissed
  • County Surveyor to place beacons on the excised 2.5 acres

Remedies

  • Costs to the Defendants/Respondents

Authorities cited

Cases cited (2)
  • Kenya Commercial Bank Limited vs Tamarind Meadows Limited & 7 Others (2016) eKLR
  • Raymond M. Omboga vs Augustine Pyan Maranga Kisii HCCA No. 15 of 2010
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case