Petitioners versus 1st-3rd Respondents (Morijo Adjudication Section officials) & Others - Preliminary Objection
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed it can decide boundary disputes over unregistered community land, even before adjudication is complete.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the present application and petition, given that the disputed unregistered land lies within an adjudication section and the adjudication process is incomplete
- 2.Whether the notice of preliminary objection dated 8th May, 2024 raises a pure point of law
Key legal issues
#Whether the court has jurisdiction over a petition concerning unregistered land within an adjudication section
The preliminary objection fails; the court has jurisdiction because the dispute is a boundary dispute between two adjudication sections over unregistered land
The respondents argued the petitioners had not exhausted the Land Adjudication Act mechanisms and required consent under section 30. The court found the respondents, sued as officials of Morijo Adjudication Section, asserted the disputed land belongs to that section, raising a boundary dispute. Such a dispute is within the court's jurisdiction, though joinder of the National Land Commission would be advisable.
Whether the objection raises a pure point of law
Yes - the objection challenges jurisdiction and thus qualifies as a pure point of law, but on the merits it fails
Applying Mukisa Biscuits and Quick Enterprises, the court accepted that the objection, being directed at jurisdiction, is a pure point of law requiring no ascertainment of facts. Jurisdiction was however found to exist.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law and cannot be sustained where facts must be ascertained
- The Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine boundary disputes over unregistered land where two adjudication sections lay claim to the same land
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of preliminary objection dated 8th May, 2024 is dismissed
- 2.Costs were not expressly addressed in the final orders
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over unregistered land disputes (Article 162(2) jurisdiction implied; Articles 40, 61 and 63 of the Constitution invoked by the petitioners)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
As such, the notice of preliminary objection dated 8th May, 2024 lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. Orders accordingly.
this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine boundary disputes within the parameters provided by law save that in this case, it would be advisable to have the National Land Commission as a party to this suit
where a court takes upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing. Jurisdiction must be acquired before judgment is given.
Issues in the judgment
#The names of the parties are not stated in the judgment; only their roles and descriptions appear
The petition/case number is not stated anywhere in the judgment
No costs order was made despite the dismissal of the preliminary objection
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Petitioners versus 1st-3rd Respondents (Morijo Adjudication Section officials) & Others - Preliminary Objection", Case Analysis (2024). Petition and Notice of Motion dated 12th April, 2024 (petition number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4555/eng@2024-06-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.