Jesus Celebration Ministry International Registered Trustee (Suing Through Its Registered Trustee George Omondi Makokha) & another v Mbai & 9 others (Environment and Land Appeal E048 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6984 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that challenges to a Land Registrar's decisions must be filed in the Environment and Land Court, not a magistrate's court.
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 appeal should be struck out due to the alleged omission of a certified copy of the impugned order in the record of appeal
- 2.Whether the points raised in the preliminary objection dated 18/10/2023 met the threshold of a preliminary objection
- 3.Whether the trial court erred in upholding the preliminary objection
Key legal issues
#Whether the appeal should be struck out for omission of a certified copy of the impugned order
The appeal was not struck out; the omission was cured by inclusion of the certified ruling and a supplementary record containing the certified order
The issue was raised for the first time in final submissions, amounting to an ambush. The certified full ruling was in the record, and a supplementary record of appeal dated 7/5/2025 contained the certified order extracted at the court's direction. A first appellate court also relies on the original lower court record.
Whether the preliminary objection met the Mukisa Biscuit threshold
It did; jurisdiction could be determined from the pleadings and the Land Registrar's ruling without ascertaining facts
The focal reference materials were the pleadings, the trial bundle placed before the lower court by the appellants, and the cited legal frameworks. No evidence was needed to establish want of jurisdiction, so the objection raised a pure point of law within the Mukisa Biscuit definition.
Whether the trial court erred in upholding the preliminary objection
No; the suit was incompetent for want of jurisdiction since it sought review of the Land Registrar's quasi-judicial ruling
The plaint alleged the Land Registrar acted illegally and ultra vires, i.e. a challenge to the validity of her administrative decision. Such challenges lie in judicial review before the Environment and Land Court or a constitutional petition. The Chief Justice had not conferred judicial review jurisdiction on the subordinate court, and the appellants did not invoke the Bill of Rights.
Legal principles established
#- A magistrate court lacks jurisdiction to judicially review a quasi-judicial decision of the Land Registrar; such review jurisdiction vests in the Environment and Land Court
- Judicial review of administrative action lies in the High Court or a subordinate court upon which the Chief Justice has conferred original jurisdiction under Article 22(3)
- Where a certified copy of the full impugned ruling is included in the record of appeal, the requirement of a certified copy of the order under Order 42 rule 13(4)(f) is sufficiently satisfied
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is rejected and dismissed for lack of merit
- 2.The appellants shall bear costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court at Maua
- Maua CMC E & L Case No. E006 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over appeals from subordinate courts in environment and land matters
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the ruling of 18/4/2024 upholding the preliminary objection and striking out the suit
The appellants' suit was, on its pleadings, an invitation to the Magistrate Court to exercise judicial review jurisdiction over the Land Registrar's quasi-judicial decision, which the subordinate court lacked
Costs
Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act; the appellants shall bear costs of the appeal.
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 suit was incompetent for want of jurisdiction on part of the subordinate court
That jurisdiction is vested in the Environment and Land Court and is exercisable through judicial review proceedings or through a constitutional petition.
The appeal is rejected and dismissed for lack of merit. In tandem with the general principle in Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act - that costs follow the event, the appellants shall bear costs of the appeal.
When a certified copy of the full ruling is included in the record of appeal, the requirements of Order 42 rule 13(4) (f) in relation to a certified copy of an impugned order is, in my view, suficiently satisfied.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jesus Celebration Ministry International Registered Trustee (Suing Through Its Registered Trustee George Omondi Makokha) & another v Mbai & 9 others (Environment and Land Appeal E048 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6984 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Maua CMC E&L Case No. E006 of 2023 (First Appeal from ruling of 18/4/2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6984/eng@2025-10-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.