Lariak Properties Limited v Metro Pharmaceuticals Limited
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed it can supervise lower courts in land disputes and punish contempt, dismissing both preliminary objections.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ELC has supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and tribunals in land and environment matters
Yes. The ELC is a superior court of equal status to the High Court under Article 162; the High Court cannot supervise courts gazetted under the ELC Act, so the ELC exercises that supervisory power mutatis mutandis, limited to environment and land disputes.
The court traced the constitutional establishment of the ELC under Article 162(2)(b), the deletion of section 13(5) of the ELC Act by the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act 2012, and relied on Karisa Chengo, Joyce Mutindi Muthama and NSSF v Sokomania. It applied presumptions against absurdity: if the ELC lacked supervisory power, gazetted subordinate courts and tribunals would be left unchecked, since the High Court is barred by Article 165(5).
Whether the court could rely on sections 3 and 18(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act to call for and dispose of the subordinate court file
Yes. 'High Court' in the Civil Procedure Act is construed to include the ELC when exercising its constitutional mandate, aided by the Sixth Schedule transitional provision and section 19 of the ELC Act.
The court held that the ELC did not exist when the Civil Procedure Act commenced, so the reference to High Court must be adapted to conform with the Constitution under Article 262 of the Sixth Schedule. Section 19 of the ELC Act binds the court to Civil Procedure Act procedure, and section 3A confers inherent power to make orders necessary for the ends of justice.
Whether the contempt proceedings and conviction of the Auctioneer were lawful and accorded with fair hearing rights
Yes. The court acted lawfully; the auctioneer had knowledge of the orders, filed an affidavit and was heard through counsel, so he was not condemned unheard.
Applying Part 81 of the English Civil Procedure (Amendment No 3) Rules 2020 via section 5 of the Judicature Act, the court may initiate contempt on its own initiative. The record showed the auctioneer swore an affidavit on November 11, 2022, admitted executing the orders, and his advocate made submissions; the objection that he was unserved or unheard therefore failed.
Whether the preliminary objections were competent under the Mukhisa Biscuits test
The court assumed competence and proceeded to determine them on the merits, finding no merit in either objection.
The court set out the Mukhisa Biscuits threshold as restated in Hassan Ali Joho, noting that an objection to jurisdiction is a proper preliminary objection, then resolved the objections on the law without finding them incompetent.
Legal principles established
#- The ELC, being a superior court of equal status to the High Court, has supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and tribunals handling environment and land matters, notwithstanding the deletion of section 13(5) of the ELC Act
- 'High Court' in the Civil Procedure Act should be read as including the ELC where the court exercises its constitutional mandate, per Article 262 Sixth Schedule transitional provisions
- Supervisory jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly, only in cases of grave miscarriage of justice or flagrant abuse of the rule of law
- A court may, on its own initiative, commence contempt proceedings under rule 81.6 of the English Civil Procedure (Amendment No 3) Rules 2020, applicable via section 5 of the Judicature Act
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objections dated November 16, 2022 and November 17, 2022 are dismissed
- 2.No order as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution; Environment and Land Court Act, 2011; supervisory jurisdiction under Article 165(6) applied mutatis mutandis and Section 18(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act
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.
- Joy Jenipher Adero Achola & Everlyn Odete Achola (suing as the legal representatives of the Estate of the late Jeckonia Oliver Achola Ndinya) v Kibagendi Robert Otachi, Fredrick Kimemia Kimani, Registrar of Titles Nairobi & Aden Hussein Mahad; Hassan Mohamd Hussein (Interested Party)[2026] KEELC 6034 (KLR)1 Oct 2026followed
- Republic v Inspector General of Police & 3 others; Asanyo & another (Exparte Applicants) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Case E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 1260 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 1260 (KLR)17 Mar 2025applied
- Kenya Railways Corporation v Brecade Limited & another (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E061 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 5794 (KLR)[2024] KEELC 5794 (KLR)31 Jul 2024followed
- Eveready Security Guards Limited v Etseem Energy Limited (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E205 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 1145 (KLR)[2024] KEELC 1145 (KLR)29 Feb 2024followed
- Ocharo v Ocharo (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E023 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 432 (KLR)[2023] KEELC 432 (KLR)1 Feb 2023followed
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lariak Properties Limited v Metro Pharmaceuticals Limited", Case Analysis (2022). Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E19 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/15000/eng@2022-11-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.