Philip Jalang'o v Ryan Properties Limited [2020] KEELC 96 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed it can hear refund and damages claims over house sale agreements, rejecting an attempt to move such disputes to the High Court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ELC has jurisdiction over a dispute arising from a sale agreement for a house, or whether it is a purely commercial dispute for the High Court
The ELC has jurisdiction; the dispute is a contract granting an enforceable interest in land under Section 13(2)(b) of the ELC Act
The court examined the pleadings and found the predominant issue was the parties' rights and obligations under the sale agreement for house number 7. The claim for rescission, refund of deposit and damages qualified as a chose in action relating to land. The court applied Black's Law Dictionary's definition of chose in action and held that rights under contracts for sale of land and breach thereof fall to the ELC. The 1997 Practice Notes cited by the Defendant predated the ELC and were superseded.
Whether the Practice Notes on Classification of Commercial Matters of 1997 ousted the ELC's jurisdiction
The 1997 Practice Notes were issued under the old Constitution before the ELC was established and do not apply
The court agreed with the Plaintiff that the Practice Notes issued by the Chief Justice on 18/11/1997 predated the 2010 Constitution and the establishment of the ELC, and were superseded by subsequent Practice Directions issued by Gazette Notices in 2012 and 2014. The Defendant also failed to demonstrate the dispute was a purely commercial transaction such as a charge over which the High Court would have exclusive jurisdiction.
Whether delay in raising the jurisdictional objection and estoppel could defeat the objection
Not finally determined; the court found jurisdiction existed, and noted none of the Defendant's authorities ousted the ELC's jurisdiction over land contracts
Although the Plaintiff argued the Defendant was estopped from raising jurisdiction late, the court did not rest its decision on estoppel. Instead it held that the Defendant had not demonstrated the dispute was a purely commercial transaction, and that the Court of Appeal authorities relied on did not oust the ELC's jurisdiction over contracts relating to the purchase of land or choses in action relating to land.
Legal principles established
#- The ELC has jurisdiction over disputes relating to contracts granting enforceable interests in land, including rights of action arising from breach of contracts for the sale of land, as choses in action under Section 13 of the ELC Act
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 11/3/2020 seeking to strike out the suit is dismissed
- 2.The Plaintiff is awarded the costs of the application dated 11/3/2020
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (2)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mhasibu Bustani Management Company v Mhasibu Housing Company Limited (Environment and Land Case E058 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 192 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 192 (KLR)26 Jan 2026
- Mwangale (As the Administratriz of the Estate of the Late Andrew Sarai Mwangale) v Attorney General (Environment & Land Petition 3(B) of 2023) [2025] KEELC 1068 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 1068 (KLR)5 Mar 2025
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Philip Jalang'o v Ryan Properties Limited [2020] KEELC 96 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the excerpt provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/96/eng@2020-12-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.