Njoroge (Suing as the Administratrix of the Estate of Peter Njoroge Muriu (Deceased)) v Kanyotu & another (Environment and Land Case E435 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2029 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed a defendant's attempt to have a Nairobi land case thrown out on territorial jurisdiction grounds, holding such disputes are fixed by transferring the file, not ending the case.
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 Notices of Preliminary Objection dated 30th September 2025 is merited, i.e. whether the court lacks territorial jurisdiction over the suit
Key legal issues
#Whether the court lacks territorial jurisdiction over the suit
The preliminary objection fails; the suit property falls within Nairobi County as evidenced by the search at the Nairobi registry and payment of rates to Nairobi City County
The court applied the Mukisa Biscuits threshold, finding the objection was a pure point of law since success would end the suit. However, on the pleadings, the search was conducted at the Nairobi registry, indicating the property lies within Nairobi County. Even absent that, a territorial defect is remedied by transfer of the file rather than dismissal, so the objection could not succeed.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law capable of disposing of the suit
- An issue of territorial jurisdiction can be cured by transfer of the file to the competent court and cannot, by itself, dispose of a suit
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of preliminary objection dated 30th September 2025 fails/dismissed
- 2.Costs will be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court Act - territorial jurisdiction over land situated within Nairobi County
Relief refused
#1st defendant's preliminary objection on territorial jurisdiction
The plaint shows the search was conducted at the Nairobi registry, placing the suit property within Nairobi County; in any event a territorial jurisdiction issue is resolved by transfer, not dismissal
Costs
Costs will be in the cause
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 upshot of the above is that the notice of preliminary objection dated 30th September 2025 thus fails. The cost will be in the cause
an issue of territorial jurisdiction is easy to deal with simply by transferring the file to the relevant jurisdiction. The same cannot dispose of this suit.
A preliminary objection is in the nature of what used to be a demurrer. It raises a pure point of law which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal contradiction in citation of Mukisa Biscuits: paragraph 6 cites [1969] EA 69 while paragraph 8 cites (1969) EA 696
The judgment is dated 13th April 2026 but refers to plaintiff's submissions dated 21st January 2026 and a preliminary objection of 30th September 2025; the year 2026 for submissions is unusual given a 2025 suit number
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njoroge (Suing as the Administratrix of the Estate of Peter Njoroge Muriu (Deceased)) v Kanyotu & another (Environment and Land Case E435 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2029 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLC E435 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2029/eng@2026-04-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.