LCL v WLM (Environment & Land Case 31 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 1165 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kitape court protected a wife's share of family land but said only the High Court can decide who owns what in a marriage.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.If the court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit.
- 2.If the plaintiff has proved entitlement to prayers to share and register half of the suit properties.
- 3.If the properties should be preserved.
- 4.If the counterclaim is merited.
- 5.What is the order of costs?
Key legal issues
#Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to declare properties matrimonial property and determine spousal shares during a subsisting marriage
The court lacks jurisdiction over the declaration of matrimonial property and the determination of spousal shares; that jurisdiction lies with the High Court, while preservation of the properties falls within ELC jurisdiction.
The Matrimonial Property Act does not define 'the court'. Under Section 13(2) of the ELC Act the ELC handles land use, title and instruments, but the High Court hears matrimonial causes and dissolution of marriage. Rule 5 of the Matrimonial Property Rules 2022 contemplates applications on dissolution or, under Rule 5(c), during subsistence of marriage in the High Court. Following WMM v EMW and JUV v GKR, the shares question belongs to the High Court, while an inhibition to preserve the properties is within ELC power.
Whether the suit properties should be preserved pending determination by the court with jurisdiction
Yes - an inhibition order was issued to preserve the properties in their current status and occupation.
The parties did not dispute that the marriage is subsisting, that the properties were acquired during the marriage, and that they are used by both spouses and third parties. The plaintiff feared disposal of Plot KX and had placed cautions on the properties. On a balance of probabilities, the court found preservation justified to maintain the status quo until the competent court determines the remaining prayers.
Whether the plaintiff proved entitlement to half of the suit properties
Not determined - the claim for sharing and registration of half shares was found to fall outside the court's jurisdiction.
Section 7 of the Matrimonial Property Act provides that ownership vests according to contribution and division occurs on divorce or dissolution. The marriage remained undissolved, and the authorities cited (including W & Another v N) indicate determination of actual shares awaits dissolution. The court therefore did not pronounce on entitlement but transferred the suit to the High Court for disposal.
Legal principles established
#- The High Court has unlimited original jurisdiction in matrimonial property matters, and Section 66(2) of the Marriage Act does not oust that jurisdiction.
- The Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction over disputes relating to land use, planning, title and instruments granting enforceable interests under Section 13(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act.
- Jurisdiction is conferred by statute or the Constitution and cannot be conferred by consent of parties.
- Under Section 12 of the Matrimonial Property Act, spousal consent is required prior to any sale and transfer of matrimonial property.
Court orders
#- 1.An inhibition order issued to preserve the suit properties in their current status and occupation until the hearing and determination of the rest of the prayers in the court with jurisdiction to do so.
- 2.The suit withdrawn and transferred to the High Court Kitale for disposal.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 165(3)(a) of the Constitution and Section 13(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act, read with the Matrimonial Property Act
Relief refused
#Declaration that the suit properties are matrimonial properties vesting in both plaintiff and defendant and an order for transfer into their joint names in undivided shares
The court found it lacks jurisdiction over the declaration of matrimonial property and the respective spousal shares, which falls to the High Court.
Defendant's counterclaim for declarations over individual parcels and a permanent injunction against the plaintiff
Not determined on its merits as the entire suit was transferred to the High Court for disposal; the injunction could not be granted against use of jointly acquired properties pending determination.
Costs
No express costs order made in the judgment.
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.
An inhibition order shall be issued to preserve the suit properties in their current status and occupation until the hearing and determination of the rest of the prayers in the court with jurisdiction to do so. The suit is hereby withdrawn and transferred to the High Court Kitale for disposal.
In this suit, the court finds it has no jurisdiction over whether or not the suit properties form part of the matrimonial properties and the respective shares of each spouse(s).
Jurisdiction is critical in any action. It is established by either a statute or the Constitution. Parties through, craftsmanship, or consent cannot confer jurisdiction to a court.
Issues in the judgment
#An Interested Party is recorded in the appearance list (Mr. Chebii for the Interested Party) but no interested party is named in the title, pleadings or analysis of the judgment.
The defendant's witness statement is dated 27/1/2025 while the amended defence and counterclaim is dated 27/1/2022; the judgment text for the witness statement may contain a typographical year.
No express costs order appears despite the court framing 'What is the order of costs?' as an issue for determination.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "LCL v WLM (Environment & Land Case 31 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 1165 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case of Kitale (number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1165/eng@2025-03-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.