Lekan & 9 others (Suing as the Representatives of Osilalei Group Ranc) v Kajiado Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer & 3 others (Judicial Review Application E008 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2152 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kajiado struck out a group ranch's challenge to fresh election orders because internal governance disputes do not belong in that 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 this Court has jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13(5) of the ELC Act to entertain the judicial review application challenging the directive calling for fresh elections of Osilalei Group Ranch officials
Key legal issues
#Whether the ELC has jurisdiction over a judicial review challenge to a directive calling for fresh elections of a group ranch's officials
The court lacks jurisdiction; the dispute is one of governance, leadership and administrative propriety within a community land entity, not a dispute over land rights
Article 162(2)(b) confines the ELC to disputes over the environment and the use and occupation of, and title to, land. Section 13(5) of the ELC Act elaborates but cannot expand that mandate. The directive challenged related to internal elections and management of the group ranch. Following Co-operative Bank v Kangethe and Suzanne Butler v Redhill Heights, matters merely incidental or collateral to land do not fall within the Court's jurisdiction, and exercising it here would contravene the Constitution and statute.
Whether the application was a land dispute mischaracterized before the wrong forum
Yes; the application was a civil dispute mischaracterized as a land dispute, and the Applicants remain free to move the appropriate court
The court found the dispute did not concern title, use or occupation of land but the legality of an administrative directive on ranch elections. It declined to consider the merits to avoid prejudicing the parties, leaving the Applicants at liberty to file in a court of competent jurisdiction, while noting the Respondents' exhaustion objection as raised but not determined on the merits.
Legal principles established
#- The jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court is limited to disputes concerning the environment and the use and occupation of, and title to, land; disputes merely incidental or collateral to land do not confer jurisdiction
- The jurisdiction of specialized courts cannot be expanded by judicial craft
- The mere fact that land is involved does not automatically confer jurisdiction upon the Environment and Land Court
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 25th February 2025 is struck out for want of jurisdiction
- 2.The court refrains from going into the merits so as not to prejudice either party should the Applicants move to the appropriate court
- 3.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
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13(5) of the Environment and Land Court Act; application brought under Order 53 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 8 and 9 of the Fair Administrative Actions Act, 2015 and Articles 22, 23 and 47 of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Order of Certiorari to quash the letter and directive dated 17th February 2025
The court lacked jurisdiction, the dispute being one of governance and administrative propriety rather than a land dispute
Order of Prohibition restraining the Respondents from interfering with the operations of the Osilalei Group Ranch
Same lack of jurisdiction; the dispute does not concern title to, use or occupation of land
Costs of the application
Given the nature of the dispute and the relationship between the parties, costs were not awarded
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.
Accordingly, and for the foregoing reasons, this Court finds and holds that it lacks jurisdiction to entertain the Notice of Motion dated 25th February 2025. The same is hereby struck out.
The court will refrain from going into the merits of the matter in order not to prejudice the position of either party should the Applicants decide to do move to the appropriate court (as they are entitled to in any case.)
Given the nature of the dispute, the unique circumstances of this matter and the relationship between the parties, each party shall bear its own costs.
The mere fact that land is involved does not automatically confer jurisdiction upon the Environment and Land Court.
a dispute relating to internal elections and management of a group ranch, even though the ranch presumably owns or manages land on behalf of its members, does not amount to a dispute on the use, occupation of, or title to land.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is dated 16th April 2026, yet the events and application are dated February–March 2025; the date 2026 may be a typographical error for 2025 but is recorded as printed.
The reference to urgency under 'Order 51 Rule 3' in the Respondents' opposition appears inconsistent with the judicial review application under Order 53, as recorded in the judgment.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lekan & 9 others (Suing as the Representatives of Osilalei Group Ranc) v Kajiado Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer & 3 others (Judicial Review Application E008 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2152 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review Notice of Motion dated 25th February 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2152/eng@2026-04-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.