Mediratta & 17 others v Karen Hills Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E047 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 684 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court confirmed it can hear the Karen Hills Estate dispute between homeowners and the estate's management company, and dismissed the attempt to move it.
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 Amended Plaint dated 22nd October, 2025 should be struck out for want of jurisdiction by this court?
- 2.Whether in the alternative, paragraphs 10, 11, 12, 15, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 50 and 51 of the Amended Plaint dated 22nd October, 2025 should be struck out?
Key legal issues
#Whether the ELC has jurisdiction over the Plaintiffs' suit arising from lease and management company arrangements in Karen Hills Estate
The court has jurisdiction; the dominant issue relates to possession, occupation and enjoyment of land, not a purely commercial dispute
Applying the predominant issue test adopted from the Court of Appeal in Joel Kyatha Mbaluka, the court examined the gravamen of the dispute. The claims are grounded in leasehold relationships under the Land Act and Land Registration Act, covering occupation, access to amenities, service charge obligations, estate management and covenants running with the land. The reliefs sought are incidental to these leasehold arrangements, hence within Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the ELC Act.
Which test governs allocation of jurisdiction between the ELC and the High Court in mixed land/commercial disputes
The predominant issue test, as settled by the Court of Appeal, rather than the predominant purpose test
The court reviewed two competing approaches: the predominant purpose test favoured by Ngugi, J in Suzanne Achieng Butler, and the predominant issue test articulated by Munyao, J in Lydia Nyambura Mbugua and endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Joel Kyatha Mbaluka. The court adopted the latter, holding that what matters is the subject matter or issue before the court, not the purpose of the underlying transaction.
Whether parts of the Amended Plaint should be struck out even if the suit is otherwise properly before the court
The alternative prayer fails because the impugned paragraphs fall squarely within the court's jurisdiction
Having found jurisdiction over the whole dispute, and having found the claims inextricably linked to the Agreements for Lease, Leases and Assignments of Lease, the court held that the paragraphs challenged concern leasehold tenure, occupation, estate management, service charge obligations and enforcement of covenants incidental to land use - all matters the ELC is clothed to determine under Section 13(2) of the ELC Act.
Legal principles established
#- In determining whether a dispute falls within the ELC's jurisdiction, the predominant issue test applies - the court examines the dominant issue in the dispute rather than the predominant purpose of the transaction
- Disputes arising from breaches of leases and agreements for lease, concerning occupation, estate management and service charge, fall within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2)(b)
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 14th November, 2025 is found to be unmerited and is 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 of Kenya and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011
Relief refused
#Prayer that the court find it lacks jurisdiction and strike out the Plaintiffs' Amended Plaint dated 22nd October 2025 in its entirety
The dominant issue concerns the Plaintiffs' possession, occupation and enjoyment of land within Karen Hills Estate, within the court's jurisdiction
Alternative prayer to strike out specified paragraphs of the Amended Plaint and corresponding prayers
The impugned paragraphs concern leasehold tenure, occupation, estate management, service charge obligations and enforcement of covenants incidental to land use, all within the court's jurisdiction
Costs
The Notice of Motion dated the 14th November, 2025 is dismissed with costs (costs to the Plaintiffs/Respondents).
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.
In the end, the Notice of Motion dated the 14th November, 2025 is found to be unmerited and is dismissed with costs.
Ultimately, the court finds that the dominant issue in this dispute concerns the Plaintifis' possession, occupation, and enjoyment of land within Karen Hills Estate.
Guided by the exposition by the Court of Appeal in Joel Kyatha(supra), the court will adopt the predominant issue test.
The impugned paragraphs are directed at matters touching on leasehold tenure, occupation, estate management, service charge obligations, and enforcement of covenants incidental to land use, all of which fall squarely within the jurisdiction of this Court.
Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment opens with empty numbered paragraphs 1 and 2, suggesting missing introductory text
The case number and full party names of the suit are not stated in the judgment text
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mediratta & 17 others v Karen Hills Limited & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E047 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 684 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment extract. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/684/eng@2026-02-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.