Storelli v Pello & another (Land Case E016 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 1347 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court can hear land sale refund claims, and the buyer can stay on the property until the case is decided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELC over a refund claim arising from a land sale agreement
The court held it has jurisdiction because the refund claim arises from a land sale transaction; the land and the breach of the sale agreement are integral to the dispute and cannot be delinked from the money claim.
Relying on Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the ELC Act, the court found the suit's substratum is the land sale agreement over Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1107. Applying the predominant purpose test from the Redhill Investments case, the predominant issue was the alleged failure to honour the land sale agreement, which falls squarely within ELC jurisdiction. The Defendants, apart from labelling it a money claim, failed to show where else the Plaintiff could seek redress.
Whether status quo orders should issue pending trial
Status quo orders were granted to preserve the suit property and balance the parties' interests pending a full trial, since breach of contract and entitlement to occupation and ownership can only be determined at trial.
The court, guided by authority on the meaning of status quo, noted that the outcome of the hearing would determine whether there was breach of contract and who is entitled to ownership and occupation. As the Defendants sought eviction while the Plaintiff sought to remain in occupation, the court found it necessary to sustain a balance and preserve the property, concluding the application must succeed.
Costs of the application
Despite the general rule that costs follow the event under the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, each party was ordered to bear its own costs, with encouragement to pursue alternative dispute resolution.
The court acknowledged that costs are discretionary and normally follow the event. However, in the circumstances of the case it considered it in the interest of justice, equity and conscience that each party bear its own costs, and encouraged the parties to continue pursuing alternative dispute resolution methods to settle the matter.
Legal principles established
#- Where a dispute's jurisdiction falls within multiple courts, the predominant purpose test determines the appropriate forum; a claim for refund of purchase price arising from a land sale agreement falls within ELC jurisdiction.
- Status quo orders preserve the subject matter of the dispute pending determination of the suit.
Court orders
#- 1.An order of status quo to be maintained at the suit premises Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1107, restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants from interfering with the Plaintiff's use and occupation pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
- 2.Mention on 16th June 2025 for Pre-Trial Conference pursuant to Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
- 3.Hearing of the suit on 31st July 2025 by virtual means.
- 4.Each party to bear its own costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011
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.
- 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
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Storelli v Pello & another (Land Case E016 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 1347 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 7th April 2022 (arising from the Plaintiff's suit; ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1347/eng@2025-03-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.