J. K Haria Investments & another v Shah & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E364 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2013 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a trespass suit because the real fight was over a boundary, a matter reserved for the Land Registrar.
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 dated 25th August 2025 is merited
- 2.Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit whose substance is a boundary dispute falling under Section 18 of the Land Registration Act
Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection met the threshold of a pure point of law
It did, because if successful it would dispose of the entire suit on jurisdiction without ascertaining facts
The court applied the Mukisa Biscuit test. The objection, founded on want of jurisdiction, assumed the facts pleaded by the plaintiff and, if successful, was capable of finally disposing of the whole matter; hence it attained the threshold of a pure preliminary point of law rather than a matter requiring ascertainment of facts or judicial discretion.
Whether the court had jurisdiction over the suit given the boundary dimension raised by Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act
The court lacked jurisdiction because the substance of the claim was a boundary dispute vested in the Land Registrar
Relying on Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act and superior court authority, the court held that boundary disputes pertaining to land falling within general boundary areas must be referred to the Land Registrar. Although the plaintiff framed the claim as trespass and sought injunctions, the encroachment issue was peripheral and subject to determination of the boundary dispute, and peripheral prayers could not confer jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- Under Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act, the jurisdiction to hear and determine boundary disputes is vested in the Land Registrar
- Peripheral prayers and the framing of a claim as trespass cannot confer jurisdiction on the Environment and Land Court where the substance of the dispute is a boundary dispute
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's suit is struck out for want of jurisdiction
- 2.Each party shall bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya and section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act (raised by the plaintiff); Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act (raised by the 3rd respondent)
Relief refused
#Permanent injunction restraining the defendants from entering, trespassing on, taking possession of or dealing with Nairobi/Block 35/457
The suit was struck out for want of jurisdiction, the substance of the claim being a boundary dispute reserved for the Land Registrar
Declarations that the defendants unlawfully trespassed, tore down the perimeter wall and commenced construction without county and NEMA permits, and general damages
Declaratory and ancillary prayers could not confer jurisdiction on the court over what is essentially a boundary dispute
Costs of the suit
The court made no orders as to costs to promote reconciliation between neighbouring parties
Costs
Each party shall bear its own 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 Plaintifi’s suit herein is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
I make no orders as to costs considering the stage at which the suit had reached and, in a bid, to promote reconciliation between the parties who are neighbours. Each party shall bear its own costs.
the inclusion of the peripheral prayers cannot confer jurisdiction on this court to determine what is clearly a boundary dispute that has led to the alleged trespass
Under Section 18 (2) of the Land Registration Act, the jurisdiction to hear and determine boundary disputes is vested on the land registrar.
It goes without saying that without the requisite jurisdiction a court of law down sits tools meaning that the objection, if successful, is capable of finally disposing the whole matter.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently dates the plaint - the plaint is described as dated 15th July 2025 in the introduction but as 'dated on 29th April 2025' in the analysis
The 3rd respondent is said to have filed a notice of preliminary objection described in the plural in the issue for determination ('Notices of Preliminary Objection dated 25th August 2025') although only one objection is recorded as filed
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "J. K Haria Investments & another v Shah & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E364 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2013 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2013/eng@2026-04-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.