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

Mengich & 6 others v Nathan (Environment and Land Case E023 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6118 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 September 2025
GOG M A Ongondo
708 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is an interlocutory ruling of the Environment and Land Court delivered virtually on 16th September 2025 by G M A Ongondo J in a dispute over land parcel Nandi/Ndalat/Settlement/1081. Two matters were before the court: a notice of motion dated 10th September 2025 filed by seven applicants through Rotich, Langat and Company Advocates, and a preliminary objection dated 16th September 2025 filed by the defendant/respondent through Kalya and Company Advocates, raising pure points of law including locus standi and limitation of actions, said to be capable of disposing of the entire suit. Both counsel concurred that the preliminary objection be heard first, and plaintiffs' counsel additionally sought that it be disposed of by written submissions and that status quo over the suit land be maintained. Respondent's counsel opposed the status quo order, arguing no danger to the applicants had been demonstrated. The court held that under Article 159(2)(b) and (e) of the Constitution, Practice Direction No. 32 of the ELC Practice Directions 2014, sections 3 and 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015 and sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, it had power to preserve the subject matter and to expedite the preliminary objection, citing Kakuta Maimai Hamisi v Peris Pesi Tobiko & 2 others (2013) eKLR on the need for promptitude. The court ordered that the preliminary objection take precedence, be heard by written submissions on a two-day filing timeline, maintained status quo over the land in the respondent's name barring any disposal, and fixed mention for 25th September 2025. No costs order was made. The substantive application and suit remain pending.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the preliminary objection dated 16th September 2025 should take precedence over the notice of motion dated 10th September 2025
  2. 2.Whether the court should grant a status quo order preserving suit land Nandi/Ndalat/Settlement/1081 pending determination of the preliminary objection and the suit

Key legal issues

#
01

Priority of the preliminary objection over the inter-partes application

Holding

The preliminary objection raising pure points of law (locus standi and limitation of actions) takes precedence and is to be heard by written submissions without delay

Reasoning

Counsel for both parties concurred that the preliminary objection raising pure points of law capable of disposing of the suit be heard first. Guided by Article 159(2)(b) and (e) on expeditious disposal of justice and the authority in Kakuta Maimai Hamisi v Peris Pesi Tobiko, the court directed that the objection be heard with promptitude by way of written submissions on a tight timeline.

p. 2
02

Preservation of the suit land pending determination

Holding

A status quo order was granted preserving land parcel Nandi/Ndalat/Settlement/1081 in the defendant/respondent's name, restrained from disposal, pending the preliminary objection and the suit

Reasoning

The court invoked Article 159(2)(b) and (e), Practice Direction No. 32 of the ELC Practice Directions 2014, sections 3 and 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015, and sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act to hold it had power to grant interim preservation orders to meet the ends of justice. Despite the respondent's objection that no danger was demonstrated, the court preserved the subject matter of the suit.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection on points of law capable of disposing of a suit should be decided with promptitude
  • The court may grant status quo orders to preserve suit land in the interim to meet the ends of justice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection to take precedence over the application and other issues in the suit, to be heard by way of written submissions
  2. 2.Defendant/respondent's counsel and plaintiffs/applicants' counsel to file and serve submissions within two (2) days from the date of the order and two (2) days upon service respectively
  3. 3.Status quo prevailing over the suit land to be maintained: the land to remain registered in the name of the defendant/respondent, who shall not sell, charge, lease, subdivide, transfer, alienate or otherwise dispose of it pending hearing and determination of the preliminary objection and the suit
  4. 4.Preliminary objection fixed for mention on 25th September 2025 to confirm compliance and for further directions

The bench

#

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

GO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159(2)(b) and (e) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; sections 3 and 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015; sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21); Practice Direction No. 32 of the Environment and Land Court Practice Directions 2014

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.

The status quo prevailing in respect of the suit land, be maintained. For clarity, the suit land to remain registered in the name of the defendant/respondent who shall not sell, charge, lease, sub divide, transfer, alienate or in any manner dispose of the land pending the hearing and determination of the preliminary objection and the suit.
p. 2Status quo preservation order
The preliminary objection to take precedence over the application and other issues in this suit and the preliminary objection be heard without delay by way of written submissions.
p. 2Priority of preliminary objection
it is established law that the court has to decide the preliminary objection with promptitude; see Kakuta Maimai Hamisi -vs-Peris Pesi Tobiko and 2 others (2013) eKLR
p. 2Prompt determination of preliminary objections

Issues in the judgment

#
material

The judgment lacks a case title, case number and identification of the parties by name; only roles (plaintiffs/applicants and defendant/respondent) appear, and the opening numbered paragraphs 1 and 2 are blank

minor

The respondent objected to the status quo order on the basis that no danger was demonstrated, but the court did not expressly address this objection before granting the order

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mengich & 6 others v Nathan (Environment and Land Case E023 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6118 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6118/eng@2025-09-16

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