Kariuki v Kariuki & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E161 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8238 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed it can hear land title fraud cases even when they also involve company law disputes.
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 Objections dated 7th May, 2025 and 19th June, 2025 are merited, i.e. whether this court lacks jurisdiction over the suit on the ground that the dispute is commercial/company law in nature reserved to the High Court
Key legal issues
#Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction over a suit combining challenges to charges, debentures, removal of directors, and land administration
The objections are dismissed; the predominant issue is alleged fraudulent dealings with the title to L.R. No. 209/11088/15, which is within the ELC's preserve.
The court noted the ELC and High Court are of equal but different jurisdictions. Faced with mixed grill matters, it adopted the predominant issue test endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Joel Kyatha Mbaluka. Although the suit raises company law issues, the company law grievances (fraudulent directorship changes) exist only in support of the principal prayers for cancellation of entries on the title and sharing of rental income. Cancellation of register entries and land administration fall squarely within Section 13 of the ELC Act.
Whether the jurisdictional challenge constitutes a proper preliminary objection
Yes - it is a pure question of law requiring no ascertainment of facts and is potentially dispositive of the suit.
Applying Mukisa Biscuits and Hassan Ali Joho, the court held that a jurisdictional challenge calls only for a characterization of the legal nature of the dispute against the court's statutory mandate, without needing to ascertain facts or exercise discretion, and is potentially dispositive. The Supreme Court in Munene vs Kingara affirmed that jurisdiction is a pure question of law to be determined as a matter of priority.
Legal principles established
#- In determining jurisdiction over cross-cutting (mixed grill) matters between the ELC and the High Court, the proper test is the predominant issue test, not the predominant purpose test.
- Jurisdiction is everything; a court without jurisdiction has no power to take any further step.
- A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law, assumed on the correctness of pleaded facts, and must be capable of disposing of the suit.
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objections dated 7th May, 2025 and 19th June, 2025 are dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution; Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011
Relief refused
#Striking out of the suit as sought by the 1st-3rd Defendants in their Preliminary Objection
The court found the predominant issue in the suit concerns alleged fraudulent dealings with title to land, which falls within its jurisdiction
Costs
The Preliminary Objections dated 7th May, 2025 and 19th June, 2025 are dismissed with 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.
For those reasons, the Preliminary Objections dated 7th May, 2025 and 19th June, 2025 are dismissed with costs.
Guided by the exposition by the Court of Appeal in Joel Kyatha(supra), the court will adopt the predominant issue test.
Therefore, the pre-dominant issue in this matter is the alleged fraudulent dealings with the title, which is within the preserve of this court.
Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step.
Issues in the judgment
#The debenture date appears inconsistently as 13th March 2023 and 31st March 2023 within the same judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kariuki v Kariuki & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E161 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8238 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8238/eng@2025-11-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.