Mathiu v National Land Commission & another (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8128 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a landowner's petition because he had to first take his compensation dispute to the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
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 Preliminary Objection dated 21st March 2025 is merited
- 2.Whether the Notice of Motion dated 24th February 2025 is merited and if so whether the Petitioner/Applicant should be granted the reliefs sought
- 3.Who should bear costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the Petition was properly before the ELC given the statutory dispute resolution mechanisms under the Land Act
The Petition was improperly before the Court; the dispute over recalled compensation for compulsory acquisition ought first to go to the Land Acquisition Tribunal, and the Court reserved the constitutional questions pending that determination
The Court accepted that Section 133C(6) of the Land Act requires matters relating to compulsory acquisition to be referred in the first instance to the Land Acquisition Tribunal, notwithstanding Section 128. Applying the Supreme Court's guidance in Kibos Distillers on judicial abstention, the Court held it should reserve the constitutional questions (such as the right to fair hearing) pending determination of the compensation issue at the right forum, the Tribunal.
Whether the Petitioner had exhausted the dispute resolution mechanisms
The Petitioner had not; the mandatory avenue was the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Sections 133A and 133C of the Land Act, whose decision could then be appealed to the ELC under Section 133D
The Court traced the statutory scheme: inquiry and hearing of claims under Section 112, written award under Section 113, payment under Section 115, and refund procedure under Section 116. Since payment had been made and the dispute concerned its recall, the matter related to compulsory acquisition and had to be referred to the Tribunal first. The Petitioner's failure to resort to the Tribunal rendered the Petition premature and incompetent.
Whether the conservatory orders sought in the Notice of Motion should issue
The Notice of Motion fell with the Petition once the Preliminary Objection was upheld
Having upheld the Preliminary Objection on jurisdictional/exhaustion grounds, the Court did not reach the merits of the conservatory relief. The Motion and the Petition were both struck out, and each party was ordered to bear its own costs. The Court made no finding on the prima facie case, public interest or nugatory-ness criteria canvassed in the parties' submissions.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection should be raised on a pure question of law determinable on the face of the pleadings without ascertaining facts from evidence
- Judicial abstention requires a court vested with jurisdiction to refrain from determining constitutional issues where appropriate legislatively mandated institutions and mechanisms exist
- Under Section 133C(6) of the Land Act, a matter relating to compulsory acquisition of land shall in the first instance be referred to the Tribunal
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 21st March 2025 is upheld
- 2.The Notice of Motion dated 24th February 2025 and the Petition are struck out
- 3.Each party shall bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) and (3) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act; contested via Sections 112, 133C and 133D of the Land Act (exhaustion doctrine)
Relief refused
#Conservatory order restraining the 1st and 2nd Respondents from recalling, seeking refund of or interfering with Kshs. 21,970,180 paid to the Petitioner pending hearing of the Petition
The Preliminary Objection was upheld on the ground that the Petitioner had not exhausted the statutory dispute resolution mechanism before the Land Acquisition Tribunal, and the Notice of Motion and Petition were struck out
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs.
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.
This Court, guided by the foregoing decision of the Apex Court reserves the Constitutional questions raised in the Petition such as the right to fair hearing pending the hearing and determination of the issue of compensation at the right forum which is the Land Acquisition Tribunal.
I find merit in the Preliminary Objection and the same is upheld.
Consequently the Notice of Motion and the Petition are hereby struck out.
Each party shall bear its own costs.
It has well settled that a Preliminary Objection should be raised on a pure question of law, which can be determined prima facie on the face of the pleadings without looking at evidence to ascertain facts.
Issues in the judgment
#The compensation sum is stated inconsistently within the judgment: the Motion seeks to preserve Kshs. 21,970,180 while the Court's analysis records payment of Kshs. 21,279,180
The case number of the Petition is not stated anywhere in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mathiu v National Land Commission & another (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8128 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8128/eng@2025-11-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.