Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherEnvironment and Land Case E123 of 2026

Nderitu v Heritage Properties Limited & 2 others

Environment and Land Court
22 September 2026
1,227 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed it can hear a property buyer's claim even where the deal started as a company investment.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado (M.D. Mwangi, J) determined a threshold question of jurisdiction raised by the court itself in a suit by Ndegwa Nderitu against Heritage Properties Limited, Inseason Developers Limited and James Muriithi Munyori. The plaintiff's claim arises from a 2017 project-investment agreement entitling him to a 10% preferential shareholding in the 2nd defendant and 30% per annum returns, which the parties later converted, by an agreement formalised on 4th May 2020, into a deposit towards the purchase of two villa units on land originally known as Ngong/Ngong/3265 and Ngong/Ngong/87289. The plaint seeks declarations on the preferential shareholding, allotment and registration of shares or payment of their value, joint and several liability, a refund of Kshs. 30,125,685.00, interest, specific performance and taking of accounts. Inviting submissions on jurisdiction, the court applied Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution, Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, and the predominant purpose test from Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S', Co-operative Bank v Kangethe and Aden v Kiptum. It found that the parties mutually converted the investment into an agreement for sale of land, and that the prayer for specific performance of the 2020 sale agreements and delivery of registered titles places the claim squarely within the ELC's jurisdiction. The court held it has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit and directed that appropriate directions be given on the pending application. No costs order was made.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether, having regard to the pleadings and the reliefs sought, this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiff's suit

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ELC has jurisdiction over a suit rooted in a project-investment agreement later converted into agreements for sale of villa units

Holding

The court held it has jurisdiction because the parties mutually converted the initial investment into an agreement for sale of land, and the plaintiff seeks specific performance of that sale together with registered titles

Reasoning

The court applied the predominant purpose test. Although the first agreement was an investment agreement conferring 10% preferential shareholding and 30% per annum returns, the parties formalised a conversion of the investment into a deposit towards purchase of two villa units on 4th May 2020. The relief now sought is specific performance of the sale and delivery of titles, a land transaction within Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13(2) of the ELC Act, notwithstanding the shareholding prayers.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Jurisdiction is a threshold issue which must be determined at the earliest opportunity
  • Mere connection with land does not confer jurisdiction on the ELC; the cause of action and dominant issue must be examined
  • Where parties convert an investment into an agreement for sale of land and specific performance of that sale is sought, the claim falls within ELC jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13(2) of the ELC Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The court is persuaded that it has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and eventually determine this suit
  2. 2.The court will proceed to give appropriate direction on the pending application accordingly

The bench

#

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

majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011

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.

Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step.
p. 2Primacy of jurisdiction
The mere fact that a dispute has some connection with land does not, without more, confer jurisdiction upon the Environment and Land Court.
p. 2Predominant purpose test
The court is persuaded that it has the requisite jurisdiction to hear and eventually determine this suit.
p. 3Disposition - jurisdiction affirmed
The court will therefore proceed to give appropriate direction on the pending application accordingly. Orders accordingly.
p. 3Final orders

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nderitu v Heritage Properties Limited & 2 others", Case Analysis (2026). Environment and Land Case E123 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5702/eng@2026-09-22

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