Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNot stated in judgment

Amanye General Suppliers Limited & another v Rafiki Microfinance Bank Ltd & another (Environment and Land Case E078 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5075 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
3 July 2025
EME. K. Makori
2,456 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a borrower's suit, confirming challenges to loan-related land sales belong in the High Court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs filed a plaint dated July 24, 2024 in the Environment and Land Court at Malindi seeking, among other reliefs, to restrain the defendants from exercising the statutory power of sale over title Kambe/Ribe/Kikomani/Makobeni/236 in Kilifi. The property had been charged to the 1st defendant, a microfinance bank, to secure loan facilities of Kshs 2,500,000 created in 2018 and 2019; after default, the bank issued statutory notices of sale and conducted a valuation. The defendants filed a preliminary objection dated February 26, 2025 contending that the court lacked jurisdiction under section 13(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act because the dispute was commercial in nature, involving charges and statutory power of sale, and belonged to the High Court. Relying on the Mukisa Biscuit test and the Court of Appeal's binding decision in Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Patrick Kangethe Njuguna, the court, echoing its own earlier ruling of November 13, 2024 in the same suit, held that a charge is a disposition of land and not 'land use', and that disputes over mortgages, charges, dues and rents fall within the High Court's civil jurisdiction. The preliminary objection succeeded and the suit was struck out with costs to the defendants.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the Preliminary Objection meets the criteria established in Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd [1969] EA 696
  2. 2.Whether the entire suit should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
  3. 3.Who should be liable for the costs of this litigation

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the preliminary objection was a pure point of law

Holding

The PO satisfied the Mukisa Biscuit criteria as it raised the pure question of the court's jurisdiction

Reasoning

The court applied the Mukisa Biscuit test as restated by the Court of Appeal in the Andrew Maina Githinji case: a PO must raise a pure point of law, assume the correctness of the pleaded facts, and require no further investigation. The objection rested solely on section 13(2) of the ELC Act, turning on the characterisation of the dispute as concerning a charge and statutory power of sale rather than land use.

p. 2
02

Whether the ELC has jurisdiction over a suit principally challenging a chargee's statutory power of sale

Holding

The ELC lacks jurisdiction; the suit belongs in the High Court

Reasoning

Following Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Patrick Kangethe Njuguna, a charge is a disposition of land, not land use, so disputes over charges and exercise of statutory power of sale fall outside section 13 of the ELC Act and within the High Court's civil jurisdiction. The plaint sought to impeach the statutory power of sale and the taking of accounts on the loan, which is commercial in nature.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The ELC has no jurisdiction over disputes concerning mortgages, charges, collection of dues and rents, which fall within the civil jurisdiction of the High Court
  • Jurisdiction must be raised at the earliest opportunity and a court without jurisdiction must down tools

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit is struck out with costs to the defendants

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

EM
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Section 13(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act; Article 162 of the Constitution

Relief refused

#

Plaintiffs' suit including injunction to restrain exercise of statutory power of sale

The court lacks jurisdiction; the dispute concerns a charge instrument and statutory power of sale, a commercial matter for the High Court

p. 5

Costs

Costs to the defendants

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.

Consequently, the PO dated February 26, 2025, succeeds to the extent that the current suit is hereby struck out with costs to the defendants.
p. 5Final orders - striking out of suit
It is a commercial matter. It should be reckoned in the High Court. I step back once again.
p. 5Lack of ELC jurisdiction over charge and statutory power of sale disputes
the ELC has no jurisdiction to deal with mortgages, charges, collection of dues, and rents—the same falls within the civil jurisdiction of the High Court.
p. 4Division of jurisdiction between ELC and High Court

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Counsel's names are inconsistently spelled within the judgment ('Ngoze'/'Ngonze' and 'Katila'/'Kitila')

minor

The judgment does not state the suit number or neutral citation

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Amanye General Suppliers Limited & another v Rafiki Microfinance Bank Ltd & another (Environment and Land Case E078 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5075 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5075/eng@2025-07-03

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.