Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment

Mohamed v Kenya Urban Roads Authority & another (Land Case E082 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3656 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 June 2026
AKA. Y. Koross
2,241 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Machakos (A. Y. Koross, J) determined a notice of preliminary objection filed by the 2nd defendant on 7 January 2026, contending that the court lacked jurisdiction over the suit as against it because the Energy Act, 2019 and the Energy (Complaints and Disputes Resolution) Regulations, 2012 vested dispute resolution in EPRA and the Energy and Petroleum Tribunal, invoking the doctrine of exhaustion. The 1st defendant supported the objection; the plaintiff opposed. The court first applied the Mukisa Biscuit threshold as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Aviation & Allied Workers Union, holding that the jurisdictional questions were pure points of law capable of disposing of the suit without factual enquiry, so the objection met the threshold. On the merits, the court examined the statutory scheme: EPRA's mandate under Section 11(i), appeals to the Energy and Petroleum Tribunal under Sections 24 and 36, and appeals to the High Court under Section 37(3). Accepting the plaintiff's position and relying on Ramogi, Claire Kubochi Anami and the Supreme Court's decision in Nicholus, the court held that the suit was multifaceted - involving trespass on the suit property, Mavoko Town Block 2/4121, and allegations against the 1st defendant over beacons placed without consent - and did not wholly fall within EPRA's or EPT's jurisdiction. Compelling the plaintiff to split its claim across multiple fora would be impractical. The preliminary objection was accordingly dismissed with costs in the cause, and parties were directed to comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules within 60 days, with a mention date to be issued.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the preliminary objection meets the legal threshold for a preliminary objection
  2. 2.Whether, if the threshold is met, the grounds of the preliminary objection are merited - i.e. whether the court lacks jurisdiction over the suit as against the 2nd defendant under the Energy Act, 2019 and related regulations

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the PO satisfies the threshold of a pure point of law

Holding

The PO met the threshold because the jurisdictional questions are purely legal matters capable of resolving the entire suit without ascertaining facts

Reasoning

Applying Mukisa Biscuit and the Supreme Court's decision in Aviation & Allied Workers Union, the court asked whether the points of law are clear, whether the facts are settled and need no ascertainment, and whether no judicial discretion is involved. Since the objection questioned the court's jurisdiction under the Energy Act, it qualified as a pure point of law that could dispose of the suit.

p. 2
02

Whether the Energy Act, 2019 statutory dispute resolution framework (EPRA and the Energy and Petroleum Tribunal) ousts this court's jurisdiction over the suit

Holding

No. The claim is multifaceted - it involves trespass and allegations against the 1st defendant regarding beacons - and does not wholly fall within EPRA's or EPT's jurisdiction, so exhaustion of statutory remedies is not mandatory

Reasoning

While EPRA may determine complaints and the EPT has original and appellate jurisdiction over energy disputes, the plaintiff's claim also raises trespass on private land and grievances against the 1st defendant outside those bodies' remit. Applying the exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion (Ramogi, Claire Kubochi Anami, Nicholus), forcing the plaintiff to split its claim across fora would be impractical and wasteful. The PO was therefore not merited.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct, and cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or judicial discretion is sought
  • Jurisdiction is everything; without it a court must put down its tools
  • The presence of an alternative statutory dispute resolution mechanism delays but does not eliminate the court's jurisdiction; there are exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion
  • The availability of an alternative remedy does not necessarily bar constitutional relief; the adequacy of the alternative remedy must be assessed

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection dated 7 January 2026 is found not merited and is dismissed with costs in the cause
  2. 2.Parties are directed to comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules within 60 days
  3. 3.A mention date shall be issued

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

AK
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act

Relief refused

#

2nd defendant's preliminary objection seeking striking out of the suit as against it for want of jurisdiction

The suit is multifaceted and does not wholly fall within the jurisdiction of EPRA or EPT; exceptions to the doctrine of exhaustion apply

p. 5

Costs

The preliminary objection is dismissed with costs 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.

Therefore, the PO dated 7 January 2026 is found not merited. It is dismissed with costs in the cause. Parties are directed to comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules within 60 days.
p. 5Disposition - dismissal of the preliminary objection
it is now settled that jurisdiction is everything, and without it, the court must put down its tools
p. 2Jurisdiction
the presence of an alternative dispute resolution mechanism under the Act only delays the need to invoke the court's jurisdiction but does not eliminate the court's authority
p. 4Doctrine of exhaustion and court jurisdiction
the suit is multifaceted
p. 5Characterisation of the claim
it would be impractical and a waste of time for the plaintifi to split its claim and lodge it with difierent adjudicative bodies
p. 5Exceptions to exhaustion - impracticality of splitting claims

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Judgment text does not state the case number or file number of the suit

minor

Court expressed uncertainty about the 2nd defendant's licence, which was not identified with precision

minor

Closing appearance list records 'No appearance for defendant' although counsel for the defendants had appeared earlier in the proceedings

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mohamed v Kenya Urban Roads Authority & another (Land Case E082 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3656 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3656/eng@2026-06-16

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.