Okelleo & another v Kilonzo & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E554 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 226 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a neighbour's suit over aggressive dogs in an apartment building because dog control belongs to county law, not the Environment and Land 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 the notice of preliminary objection is merited
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over dog control and welfare disputes in residential apartments
The ELC lacks jurisdiction as such disputes fall under county legislation (Nairobi City County Dog Control and Welfare Act, 2015) and relate to animal control, a devolved function, not land use, occupation or title
The court analysed Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act which grant jurisdiction over disputes relating to environment and land, including use and occupation of, and title to, land. It held that a dispute about care and control of dogs in common areas of a residential building does not inherently relate to use and occupation of land or environmental planning and protection. It is a county-level animal control matter under the Nairobi City County Dog Control and Welfare Act, 2015.
Validity of the preliminary objection
A preliminary objection on jurisdiction is a valid point of law capable of disposing of the suit and was merited in this case
The court adopted the classic definition in Mukisa Biscuits Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd that a preliminary objection consists of a point of law which, if argued as a preliminary point, may dispose of the suit, giving jurisdiction as an example. Since the 1st Defendant's objection was purely on jurisdiction, it qualified as a valid preliminary objection and, having succeeded on jurisdiction, warranted dismissal of the suit.
Legal principles established
#- The Environment and Land Court's jurisdiction is limited to proprietary land and environmental issues; disputes on dog control and welfare fall under county legislation and belong before the Magistrate's Court or High Court
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of preliminary objection is merited and the application and entire suit are dismissed for want of jurisdiction
- 2.Each party to bear their own 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 of Kenya 2010 and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the 1st Defendant from allowing unmuzzled or unrestrained dogs in common areas of Orchid Residency
The court lacks jurisdiction as the dispute falls under the Nairobi City County Dog Control and Welfare Act, 2015
Orders compelling the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to enforce the residency and safety provisions of the Residency Code of Conduct
The court lacks jurisdiction as the dispute falls under the Nairobi City County Dog Control and Welfare Act, 2015
Costs
Each party to bear 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.
The notice of preliminary objection is merited and the application and entire suit should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.
it does not fall within the specific constitutional and statutory mandate of the ELC, which primarily deals with proprietary land and environmental issues.
jurisdiction is everything and without it, a court has no power to make one more step.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okelleo & another v Kilonzo & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E554 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 226 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). notice of motion application dated 3rd November 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/226/eng@2026-01-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.