National Land Commission v Afrison Export Import Limited & 10 others [2019] KEELC 4569 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed it can pause criminal cases tied to land disputes, but refused to do so here because the National Land Commission showed no real need.
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 to grant conservatory orders as prayed for, including orders touching on criminal prosecution
- 2.Whether conservatory orders should be granted in the manner sought, staying civil and criminal proceedings arising from the compulsory acquisition of part of LR No. 7879/4
Key legal issues
#Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to grant conservatory orders touching on criminal prosecution
The preliminary objection on jurisdiction is overruled; the court has jurisdiction where the criminal aspect arises directly from a matter properly pending before it
The court applied the Mugendi and Munya line of authority on ancillary powers: a court seized of a matter within its jurisdiction may make essential or ancillary orders to sustain its mandate. The Reference, properly brought under Section 127 of the Land Act, concerned whether the acquired portion was public or private land; the apprehended prosecutions stemmed from the same acquisition process and could not be severed from the principal question.
Whether conservatory orders should issue staying civil and criminal proceedings pending determination of the Reference
Dismissed: no basis was shown for stopping the civil cases, and no prosecution had commenced, making the orders superfluous
The NLC bore the burden of demonstrating that the various pending suits across the courts bore on the Reference and required staying; it failed to do so, and in any event the court could not stop a matter pending in the Court of Appeal. As to criminal proceedings, neither the EACC nor the DPP had taken any precipitate step towards prosecution, and the Reference had been heard with judgment pending, so conservatory relief had become otiose.
Legal principles established
#- A court with jurisdiction over a principal matter may grant conservatory orders ancillary to it, even touching on criminal prosecution, where the criminal aspect is so intertwined with the main issue as not to be separable and just cause is shown
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection by the 7th and the 10th interested parties is overruled
- 2.The prayer for conservatory orders is declined
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 127 and 128 of the Land Act No. 2 of 2012, with the court's jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act in issue
Relief refused
#Conservatory orders staying civil proceedings in various courts touching on the compulsory acquisition
The NLC did not demonstrate that the pending cases bore on the Reference, and the court cannot stop a matter pending before the Court of Appeal
Conservatory orders staying criminal investigations or prosecution arising from the acquisition
No precipitate action had been taken towards prosecution and the Reference was already heard and pending judgment, making the orders superfluous
Costs
Each party to bear their 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.
In my considered view, this court can grant conservatory orders touching on criminal prosecution which are arising directly from a matter which is properly pending before the court if there is just cause shown for it to do so.
it was incumbent upon The NLC to demonstrate that those cases have a bearing on what is before this Court and that there is need to stop the cases from proceeding
1. The preliminary objection by the 7th and the 10th interested parties is overruled. 2. The prayer for conservatory orders is declined 3. Each party to bear their own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment states that Judge Eboso agrees with the ruling, implying a bench of two judges, but the coram lists only E.O. Obaga and no separate concurring opinion by Eboso appears in the text
Typographical errors in party names in the cause title (e.g. 'CABINET SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY' and 'ETHICHS & ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (5)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Muchiri v Muchiri (Miscellaneous Application E038 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4847 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4847 (KLR)23 Jul 2026applied
- Endorois Welfare Council v Cabinet Secretary Ministry of Environment, Climate Change and Forestry & 4 others (Environment and Land Petition E01 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 432 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 432 (KLR)4 Feb 2026
- Mombasa Polytechnic University College v Chief Land Registrar & 2 others [2022] KEELC 385 (KLR)[2022] KEELC 385 (KLR)25 Apr 2022applied
- Mohamed Shally Sese (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of the Late Shali Sese) v Edward Mzee Karezi & 8 others [2022] KEELC 1160 (KLR)[2022] KEELC 1160 (KLR)16 Feb 2022applied
- Richard Kimani v Swaleh Mohamed Mwakuriwa & 5 others [2022] KEELC 1751 (KLR)[2022] KEELC 1751 (KLR)20 Jan 2022applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "National Land Commission v Afrison Export Import Limited & 10 others [2019] KEELC 4569 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELC Reference No. 1 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4569/eng@2019-02-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.