Ojala v Ojala & another (Environment and Land Case E004 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 816 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed it can hear any land dispute regardless of value, but still transferred this Sori town plot case to a lower 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 preliminary objection is merited
- 2.Who should bear the costs of the preliminary objection
Key legal issues
#Whether the ELC's jurisdiction is limited by the pecuniary thresholds applicable to magistrates' courts
The objection was unmerited; the ELC has unlimited jurisdiction over land disputes irrespective of value
Article 162(2)(b) establishes courts with High Court status for land disputes, and Section 13(1) of the ELC Act confers jurisdiction over 'all disputes'. The KShs 20 million threshold in Section 7 of the Magistrates' Court Act limits subordinate courts only. Filing in the wrong forum does not oust jurisdiction; the proper course was an application to transfer. The objection was thus mischievous and an abuse of process.
Whether the preliminary objection was incompetent because the supporting submissions were signed by a firm not on record for the 2nd Defendant
The preliminary objection remained validly before the court despite the misdescription in the submissions
The court distinguished pleadings from submissions: the objection was a pleading properly signed by the advocates, while the submissions were merely a 'marketing tool' mistakenly signed as for the 2nd Defendant. Since submissions are not pleadings or evidence, the error was disregarded and the objection analyzed on its merits.
Legal principles established
#- The ELC's jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the ELC Act covers all land and environment disputes irrespective of pecuniary value; only subordinate courts have pecuniary limits
- Institution of a land dispute in a court of higher pecuniary jurisdiction does not render the suit incompetent; the remedy is an application for transfer, not striking out
- A defect in signing submissions does not invalidate a preliminary objection properly on record, since submissions are not pleadings or evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff
- 2.Suo motu, the suit is transferred forthwith to the Migori Subordinate Court for hearing and determination
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 and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#Defendants' prayer that the suit be struck out for want of pecuniary jurisdiction
The ELC has unlimited jurisdiction over all land disputes irrespective of value; absence of pleaded value goes to forum, not competence
Costs
The preliminary objection is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff
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.
It means that the law does not prohibit the ELC from handling any dispute whose value can even be zero (0) and be as high as billions or trillions as long as it relates to the environment and land.
While it is good order and advisable for a dispute over certain subject to be instituted in a court of the lowest pecuniary jurisdiction, it does not render the suit incompetent
The upshot is that the preliminary objection is unmerited. It is dismissed with costs to the Plaintifi.
This Court therefore orders, suo motto, that the instant suit be transferred forthwith to the Migori Subordinate Court for hearing and determination.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the objection and submissions are dated June 2025 but the ruling is stated to have been delivered on 11th February 2026, while the drafting context (submission dates of 24th June 2025) suggests the year 2026 in the delivery line may be an error
Tension between dismissing the preliminary objection with costs and nevertheless transferring the suit out of the court, given the court's own finding that the plaintiff's pleadings did not disclose the value of the plot
The plaint is described as disclosing a plot measuring '25ft by 100ft' but the final paragraph refers to '25ft x 50ft'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ojala v Ojala & another (Environment and Land Case E004 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 816 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/816/eng@2026-02-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.