Aden & 4 others v Kiptum & 6 others; Xplico Insurance Company (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case E056 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3144 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a land dispute because the real deal was shares, not land, so the High Court must hear it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ELC has jurisdiction over a dispute where land was transferred as consideration for shares
The court lacks jurisdiction because the predominant purpose was the sale of shares in an insurance company; the land was merely consideration
Applying the predominant purpose test from Suzanne Achieng Butler, the court examined the plaint. The plaintiffs transferred parcels of land to the interested party so that the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs or their nominees could be allotted shares and directorship. Although the plaintiffs sought cancellation of the transfers and reinstatement as registered proprietors, the core of the dispute was the share allocation in the insurance company, a commercial matter for the High Court, not the ELC.
Whether the remaining preliminary objections (locus standi, exhaustion, res judicata, sub judice) needed determination
No; once jurisdiction fails, the other issues need not be determined
The court held that a finding on jurisdiction renders determinations on the remaining issues academic, since the court without jurisdiction can entertain nothing further.
Costs
No order as to costs despite the general rule that costs follow the event
Although costs ordinarily follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court reasoned the dispute was filed in the wrong forum and may still be resolved in the right forum, making a no-costs order appropriate.
Legal principles established
#- Where a transaction involves both land and shares, jurisdiction is determined by the predominant purpose of the transaction
- A court without jurisdiction must down its tools
Court orders
#- 1.The plaint dated 21.06.2024 and filed on 25.06.2024 is hereby struck
- 2.There shall be no orders as to costs
- 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
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Aden & 4 others v Kiptum & 6 others; Xplico Insurance Company (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case E056 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3144 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3144/eng@2025-04-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.