Safariplies Limited v County Government of Bungoma & 3 others (Environment & Land Case E001 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 3275 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Bungoma stopped Bungoma County from interfering with Safariplies' land for six months, confirming the court's power over land title disputes.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ELC is bereft of jurisdiction in favour of the County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee under Section 72(3) of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act
The preliminary objection on jurisdiction fails; the applicant's claim is for protection of a title to land, which falls within the original jurisdiction of the ELC
The court held that the applicant seeks protection of what it claims to be a legally obtained title, not a dispute about land use and planning. The respondents' own replying affidavit placed the mode of acquisition of title at the centre of the dispute. Since determining the legality of title is vested in the ELC under Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the ELC Act, the doctrine of exhaustion under Section 72(3) PLUPA did not oust the court's jurisdiction.
Whether the suit is sub judice given the pending ELCEPPET E002 of 2024
The sub judice plea was not validly raised as a preliminary objection because the facts are disputed and the pleadings in the previous suit were not exhibited
Under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, a party pleading sub judice must show the same parties litigating under the same title over the same issue in a previously instituted suit. To establish this, the pleadings in the prior suit must be exhibited. Because the parties disputed identity of parties and issues, the plea required evidence and could not succeed as a preliminary objection.
Whether the applicant met the Giella v Cassman Brown criteria for a temporary injunction
The applicant established a prima facie case, irreparable injury and balance of convenience, justifying a temporary injunction for six months
The applicant holds a title deed which under Sections 24 and 26(1) of the Land Registration Act is prima facie evidence of absolute ownership, and the respondents' allegations of fraud and public-purpose reservation were disputed facts only resolvable at a full hearing. The developments and a KCB charge of Kshs. 10,500,000/= demonstrated irreparable loss not compensable in damages, and granting the injunction bore the lower risk. Preservation of the substratum pending trial favoured injunctive relief.
Legal principles established
#- Jurisdiction is everything and a court proceeding without jurisdiction is a nullity ab initio.
- A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law on undisputed facts; where facts must be ascertained it cannot stand.
- A plea of sub judice ought not be raised as a preliminary objection where the facts are in dispute; it should be raised by Notice of Motion with the pleadings in the two suits exhibited.
- The power to determine the legality of title to land is vested in the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of temporary injunction restraining the Defendant/Respondents, their servants, employees, agents, assignees or anybody claiming under them from entering, accessing, trespassing, encroaching or interfering with the plaintiff/applicant's quiet occupation, use and possession of parcel E.BUKUSU/N.KANDUYI/4634 for a period of six (6) months from the date of the Ruling pending hearing and determination of the main suit.
- 2.The costs of the application shall be costs in the cause.
- 3.This matter shall be heard and determined on priority basis.
- 4.The pleadings be amended to bring on board Kenya Commercial Bank as an interested party to the Petition, since the applicant secured a loan facility of Kshs. 10,500,000/= from KCB secured by the title to the suit property.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011; application brought under Order 40 Rules 1, 2 and 3 and Order 51 Rules 1 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kerema v Government of Makueni County (Environment and Land Case 35 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 6184 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 6184 (KLR)25 Sept 2025applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Safariplies Limited v County Government of Bungoma & 3 others (Environment & Land Case E001 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 3275 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (Notice of Motion dated 2nd February 2024; referenced related petition ELCEPPET E002 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/3275/eng@2024-04-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.