Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the excerpt (Petition pending, with Notice of Motion dated 25th November 2024)· [2025] KEELC 3667 (KLR)

Kibii (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late Kibii Boiyo) v Agricultural Developent Corporation & others; Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission & another (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Petition E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3667 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 April 2025
3,444 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled it cannot stop EACC corruption investigations or prosecutions—only the High Court can, so the case was dismissed with costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Petitioner, Daniel Kibet Bii, moved the Environment and Land Court by notice of motion dated 25th November 2024 seeking conservatory orders barring the Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission from investigating, summoning, arresting or prosecuting him over properties LR No. 5335/23 and LR 4140/4 in Trans Nzoia County, the subject of a pending petition. He also sought cross-examination of one Charles Rasugu, a declaration that his conduct was contemptuous punishable by six months' imprisonment, and a declaration that he was unfit for public office. The Petitioner argued the investigations were calculated to circumvent the ELC's exclusive jurisdiction and his Article 50 right to a fair trial, relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Jirongo v Soy Developers Ltd. The 1st Interested Party (EACC) and the 2nd Interested Party responded that the Commission was exercising its constitutional and statutory mandate under Section 11(1)(d) of the EACC Act and Section 35 of the Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Act. The 2nd to 4th Respondents raised a preliminary objection contending the application was frivolous and that the Court lacked jurisdiction and power to supervise the EACC. The Court framed three issues: whether the application was frivolous and mischievous; whether it had jurisdiction; and costs. Applying Mukhisa Biscuit, it held the frivolousness ground was not a pure point of law and failed. On jurisdiction, invoking Lillian S and Equity Bank v Mutuku, it held that under Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the ELC Act its mandate is confined to land and environment matters, while criminal matters and supervision of bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions belong to the High Court under Article 165(3) and (6). Upholding the preliminary objection, the Court dismissed the application with costs to the objecting parties and directed that the related application on additional documents be delivered on 4th June 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ground that the application was frivolous and mischievous was a proper preliminary objection

Holding

It was not a pure point of law and failed

Reasoning

Applying the Mukhisa Biscuit definition, the Court held that determining whether a motion is frivolous or mischievous requires examining the facts of the application and weighing them against the law, which takes it outside the realm of a pure point of law. A preliminary objection must be decided on pleadings and law alone.

p. 5
02

Whether the ELC has jurisdiction over the application seeking to restrain EACC investigations and prosecution

Holding

It does not; only the High Court has such jurisdiction

Reasoning

The Court traced its jurisdiction to Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the ELC Act, confined to land and environment matters, with quasi-criminal jurisdiction only in contempt. Article 165(3) vests unlimited original criminal jurisdiction in the High Court and Article 165(6) gives the High Court supervisory powers over bodies exercising quasi-judicial functions. The ELC therefore could not supervise EACC investigations or the processes leading to criminal charges.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • The Environment and Land Court has no jurisdiction to determine issues of a criminal nature or supervise processes leading to the institution of criminal charges; that mandate lies with the High Court
  • A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law and fails where facts must be ascertained

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection dated 3rd December 2024 was upheld as merited
  2. 2.The application dated 25th November 2024 (referred to in the ruling as 25th November 2025) was dismissed with costs to the parties which supported the objection
  3. 3.The related application relating to the filing of additional documents to be delivered on 4th June 2025
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 162(2)(b) and 165 of the Constitution of Kenya and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kibii (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late Kibii Boiyo) v Agricultural Developent Corporation & others; Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission & another (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Petition E001 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3667 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the excerpt (Petition pending, with Notice of Motion dated 25th November 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3667/eng@2025-04-28

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.