Kibii (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late Kibii Boiyo) v Agricultural Developent Corporation & others; Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission & another (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Petition E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3667 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled it cannot stop EACC corruption investigations or prosecutions—only the High Court can, so the case was dismissed with costs.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the application is frivolous and mischievous
- 2.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant matter
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the ground that the application was frivolous and mischievous was a proper preliminary objection
It was not a pure point of law and failed
Applying the Mukhisa Biscuit definition, the Court held that determining whether a motion is frivolous or mischievous requires examining the facts of the application and weighing them against the law, which takes it outside the realm of a pure point of law. A preliminary objection must be decided on pleadings and law alone.
Whether the ELC has jurisdiction over the application seeking to restrain EACC investigations and prosecution
It does not; only the High Court has such jurisdiction
The Court traced its jurisdiction to Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the ELC Act, confined to land and environment matters, with quasi-criminal jurisdiction only in contempt. Article 165(3) vests unlimited original criminal jurisdiction in the High Court and Article 165(6) gives the High Court supervisory powers over bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions. The ELC therefore could not supervise EACC investigations or the processes leading to criminal charges.
Legal principles established
#- The Environment and Land Court has no jurisdiction to determine issues of a criminal nature or supervise processes leading to the institution of criminal charges; that mandate lies with the High Court
- A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law and fails where facts must be ascertained
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection dated 3rd December 2024 was upheld as merited
- 2.The application dated 25th November 2024 (referred to in the ruling as 25th November 2025) was dismissed with costs to the parties which supported the objection
- 3.The related application relating to the filing of additional documents to be delivered on 4th June 2025
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 162(2)(b) and 165 of the Constitution of Kenya and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011
Relief refused
#Conservatory orders barring the 1st Interested Party from investigating, summoning, arresting or prosecuting the Petitioner
The Court lacked jurisdiction, criminal matters being within the High Court's unlimited original jurisdiction
Summons to Mr. Charles Rasugu for cross-examination
The entire application was dismissed for want of jurisdiction
Declaration that Mr. Charles Rasugu's actions were contemptuous and imposition of a six-month jail term
The application was dismissed on jurisdiction
Declaration that Mr. Charles Rasugu is unfit to hold public office
The application was dismissed on jurisdiction
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the parties which supported the Preliminary Objection
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.
I dismiss the application dated 25th November 2025 with costs to the parties which supported the Objection.
From such a finding, it is clear that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to supervise processes that lead to the institution of criminal charges against any parties, whether such processes are begun by the 2nd Interested Party or any other.
It means that this Court does not have jurisdiction to determine issues of a criminal nature, including the process leading to the institution of such matters in courts.
Issues in the judgment
#The application is inconsistently dated in the judgment: filed 25th November 2024 but dismissed as dated 25th November 2025
Contradictory dates for the interview invitation letter annexed as DKK1 (letter dated 11th November 2024; interview stated as 27th November 2024 in grounds but 27th November 2021 in the affidavit description)
The identity of the investigating body alternates between the 1st and 2nd Interested Parties without clarification
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kibii (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late Kibii Boiyo) v Agricultural Developent Corporation & others; Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission & another (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Petition E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3667 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt (Petition pending, with Notice of Motion dated 25th November 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3667/eng@2025-04-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.