Odera v Credit Bank Plc & another (Environment and Land Case E022 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 568 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court struck out a landowner's suit against his bank because mortgage disputes belong in the High Court, not the ELC.
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 court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the present suit
- 2.If the answer to the above is yes, whether the application has met the threshold for grant of the orders of injunction
- 3.Who should bear the costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction over a dispute concerning charges over land and the exercise of a bank's statutory power of sale
The ELC lacks jurisdiction; such disputes fall within the High Court's commercial jurisdiction, and the court must down its tools
Applying the Owners of Motor Vessel Lilian S principle and the Court of Appeal's decision in Cooperative Bank of Kenya Ltd v Patrick Kang'ethe Njuguna, the court held that ELC jurisdiction under section 13 of the ELC Act covers contracts incidental to the use of land but not mortgages, charges and collection of dues. The plaintiff's claim centered on allegations that charge documents were forged, which the High Court can interrogate. Existence of the charges was not denied.
Whether the proceedings should be stayed due to a substantially similar pending suit before the High Court at Kisumu
The court noted a real danger of conflicting decisions given the overlapping suit (Kisumu HCCC No. E019 of 2025) but did not need to decide the stay since it struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction
The 1st defendant disclosed that the plaintiff's estranged wife had filed Kisumu HCCC No. E019 of 2025 involving the same bank, the same auctioneer and the same titles, in which she also seeks a permanent injunction restraining the sale. The court observed the parties were substantively the same except the current plaintiff, and that the danger of conflicting decisions on the exercise of the bank's statutory power of sale was real.
Legal principles established
#- Jurisdiction is everything; without it a court cannot take any further step in a matter
- Disputes over mortgages, charges, and collection of dues and rents fall within the civil jurisdiction of the High Court, not the Environment and Land Court
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is struck out for want of jurisdiction
- 2.The plaintiff shall bear the costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act (jurisdiction disputed; court held it lacked jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Interlocutory injunction restraining the 1st Defendant and Hegeon Auctioneers from selling or alienating title Nos. East Alego/Mur Ngiya/1634 & 1698 pending hearing of the application and the suit
The court found it lacked jurisdiction over the dispute concerning charges and exercise of statutory power of sale, which falls within the High Court's commercial jurisdiction
Costs
The Plaintiff shall bear the 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.
Arising from the foregoing it is the finding of this court that this court is not the competent court to handle this dispute and it must down its tools.
I think having made a finding that jurisdiction to determine this matter lies with the High in its exercise of commercial jurisdiction I will down my tools. The orders that therefore commend is that for this reason the suit is strike out for want of jurisdiction.
Such contracts, in our view, ought to be incidental to the ‘use’ of land; they do not include mortgages, charges, collection of dues and rents which fall within the civil jurisdiction of the High Court.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment appears to be an interlocutory ruling on a notice of motion for injunction, yet the court strikes out the entire suit for want of jurisdiction, an outcome ordinarily requiring a notice of motion or suo motu power for striking out, which is not shown to have been formally sought
The 1st defendant's replying affidavit is dated 7th July 2025 while submissions by the 1st defendant are dated 5/12/2025 and the plaintiff's 25/10/25, and the ruling is delivered 6th February 2026, suggesting a possibly inconsistent chronology within the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Odera v Credit Bank Plc & another (Environment and Land Case E022 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 568 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (Notice of motion dated 11th June 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/568/eng@2026-02-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.