SIC Investment Co - operative Society Limited (Formerly Safaricom Investment Co - operative Society Limited) v Jao & 12 others (Environment and Land Case E077 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2945 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's land court ruled it—not the Kadhi's Court—decides land ownership disputes involving companies, and refused to strike out the co-operative's suit.
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 Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiff's suit seeking to quash the decisions of the Kadhi's Court in KCSUCC/E085/2024 and KCSUCC/E112/2024
- 2.Whether the Plaintiff's suit as filed is defective for having been instituted in a forum lacking jurisdiction
- 3.Whether the Plaintiff, being a corporate entity, could lawfully seek reliefs in respect of proprietary rights affected by Kadhi's Court decisions to which it was not a party
- 4.Whether striking out of the Plaintiff's suit is merited in the circumstances of this case
- 5.What orders should issue as to costs of the Notice of Motion application dated 5th August, 2025
Key legal issues
#Whether the ELC has jurisdiction to entertain a suit seeking to quash Kadhi's Court succession decisions
The Court held it has jurisdiction because the Plaintiff's proprietary rights in land are at stake; the Kadhi's Court cannot determine proprietary rights of a corporate entity, and such disputes fall within the ELC's mandate under Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the ELC Act.
The Court distinguished the two-pronged nature of the suit: quashing the Kadhi's Court decisions and protecting proprietary rights in LR No. Kwale/Ng'ombeni/1426. It held the Kadhi's Court's special jurisdiction under Article 170(5) applies only where all parties profess Islam and submit to it, which a co-operative society cannot do. Where third-party proprietary rights in land are implicated, the specialized land court is the proper forum, even if the impugned decisions emanated from the Kadhi's Court.
Whether the ELC has supervisory jurisdiction over the Kadhi's Court
The Court rejected the Plaintiff's contention that it could exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6), holding that supervisory jurisdiction is expressly vested in the High Court and the ELC cannot arrogate such powers to itself.
Although the Court initially stated that Article 165(6) empowers courts of equal status to supervise subordinate courts, it later corrected course: supervisory jurisdiction is expressly vested in the High Court under Article 165(6). The ELC is a specialized court with jurisdiction limited to its statutory remit and cannot arrogate supervisory powers over subordinate courts outside its mandate. The suit nonetheless survived because its proprietary-rights claims fell within the ELC's original jurisdiction.
Whether the Plaintiff, a corporate entity and non-party to the Kadhi's Court proceedings, has standing
The Court held the Plaintiff has standing because the Kadhi's Court decisions directly affected its proprietary rights in land, and its decisions cannot bind or oust the rights of a non-party corporate entity.
The Plaintiff was not a party to the succession proceedings and, being a co-operative society, could not have submitted to the Kadhi's Court's jurisdiction. Since the decisions directly impacted its proprietary rights in the suit property, the Plaintiff was entitled to approach the ELC to safeguard its property rights. The Court found this raised legitimate questions of ownership and title within its jurisdiction, not frivolous litigation.
Whether striking out of the Plaintiff's suit is merited
Striking out was refused: the suit raises substantive questions of proprietary rights deserving full ventilation at trial, and any defects in pleadings can be cured by amendment.
Applying Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the line of authorities from DT Dobie & Company (Kenya) Ltd v Muchina, the Court reiterated that striking out is draconian and a remedy of last resort, exercised only in plain and obvious cases where pleadings are beyond redemption. The Plaintiff's suit raised triable issues on ownership and title, and defects could be cured by amendment; striking it out would deny the Plaintiff access to justice.
Legal principles established
#- The Kadhi's Court's jurisdiction under Article 170(5) is limited to questions of Muslim law on personal status, marriage, divorce or inheritance where all parties profess the Muslim religion and submit to its jurisdiction, and does not extend to proprietary rights in land of a corporate entity incapable of professing religion.
- Where succession decisions of the Kadhi's Court affect third-party proprietary rights in land, particularly of corporate entities or non-Muslims, the proper forum is the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the ELC Act.
- Striking out of pleadings is a draconian remedy of last resort, exercisable only in plain and obvious cases where defects cannot be cured by amendment.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 5th August, 2025 filed by the 2nd to 12th Defendants/Applicants seeking to strike out the Plaintiff's suit is dismissed for want of merit
- 2.Declaration that while the Kadhi's Court was properly seized of succession matters among Muslims, its jurisdiction does not extend to proprietary rights of a corporate entity incapable of professing religion; the Plaintiff's claim relating to ownership and title to land is properly before the Court under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
- 3.The Plaintiff's suit shall proceed to hearing on merits as scheduled
- 4.Mention on 6th October, 2026 for Pre-Trial Conference under Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; hearing on 25th January, 2027 preferably through physical means
- 5.The costs of the Notice of Motion dated 5th August, 2025 shall be borne by the 2nd to 12th Defendants/Applicants
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
#Strike out of the Plaintiff/Respondent's suit in its entirety
The Court found it had jurisdiction over the proprietary-rights claims, the Plaintiff had standing, the suit raised triable issues, and striking out is a draconian remedy of last resort
Costs
The costs of the Notice of Motion dated 5th August, 2025 shall be borne by the 2nd to 12th Defendants/Applicants.
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.
That the Notice of Motion application dated 5th August, 2025 filed by the 2nd to 12th Defendants/Applicants seeking to strike out the Plaintiff's suit be and is hereby found to be without merit hence it is dismissed.
That the costs of the Notice of Motion dated 5th August, 2025 shall be borne by the 2nd to 12th Defendants/Applicants.
That the Honourable Court holds that while the Kadhi's Court was properly seized of succession matters among Muslims, its jurisdiction does not extend to proprietary rights of a corporate entity incapable of professing religion.
That the Plaintiff's suit shall therefore proceed to hearing on merits as scheduled.
Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a Court has no power to make one more step.
No suit ought to be summarily dismissed unless it appears so hopeless that it plainly and obviously discloses no reasonable cause of action and is so weak as to be beyond redemption and incurable by amendment.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal contradiction on the ELC's supervisory jurisdiction: the Court first states that under Article 165(6) the High Court and courts of equal status (including the ELC) have supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts including the Kadhi's Court, but later holds supervisory jurisdiction is vested only in the High Court and the ELC cannot arrogate it to itself.
The judgment is styled a 'RULING' (delivered 8th May 2026) though the brief relates to a decision on a Notice of Motion dated 5th August 2025; the disposition refers to 'the following decision and makes the orders below'.
The case number of the suit before the Court is not stated anywhere in the judgment; only the Kadhi's Court case numbers (KCSUCC/E085/2024 and KCSUCC/E112/2024) are given.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "SIC Investment Co - operative Society Limited (Formerly Safaricom Investment Co - operative Society Limited) v Jao & 12 others (Environment and Land Case E077 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2945 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (suit filed 13th November 2024, ELC at Kwale). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2945/eng@2026-05-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.