County Government of Nandi v Morong & another (Environment & Land Case E015 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5007 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nandi landowner who received full payment and handed over land for a dispensary failed to stop the buyer's suit, which now proceeds to trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction over procurement-related challenges to a land sale agreement
The ELC has jurisdiction to determine whether the sale agreement offends statutes and public policy on procurement and asset disposal by the plaintiff.
The court declined the argument that such questions belong exclusively to the PPARB under Section 27 of the Public Procurement and Assets Disposal Act and the High Court under Article 165(6). Citing Suzanne Achieng Butler, it held jurisdiction should be approached functionally, looking at constitutional objectives. The predominant issue pleaded - whether the sale agreement offends the statutes governing acquisition of land by the plaintiff - falls squarely within the ELC's remit.
Whether the suit discloses a cause of action and should be struck out
The suit discloses a reasonable cause of action based on the 1st defendant's admitted breach of the sale agreement; striking out was refused.
The 1st defendant admitted execution of the agreement, receipt of Kshs.1,000,000/=, and handing over possession, on which the plaintiff built a dispensary. She did not plead no cause of action in her defence, did not offer to refund the consideration as a condition precedent to equitable relief, and took none of the statutory remedies under Sections 40-44 of the Land Act. A reasonable cause of action need only have a chance of success at trial.
Whether interim injunction should issue to the 1st defendant
No injunction; the applicant failed to establish breach of her rights, tangible loss, or exceptional circumstances for a mandatory or prohibitory interlocutory injunction.
The 1st defendant admits the agreement was consummated and substantially performed - consideration received, vacant possession given, and permanent developments completed with her knowledge. She filed no counterclaim, pleaded no breach by the plaintiff, and pursued none of the vendor's statutory remedies. Any claimed loss is speculative, and an injunction would harm the residents of Enego village served by the dispensary.
Legal principles established
#- The Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to determine whether a sale agreement of land offends statutes and public policy on procurement and disposal of assets; such issues need not first go to the PPARB.
- A court will not strike out a suit seeking to enforce an alleged illegal contract where the party alleging illegality has not pleaded a refund or taken statutory steps to rescind before seeking equitable relief.
- Striking out pleadings is a draconian remedy to be exercised cautiously at the interlocutory stage.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 11/6/2025 is dismissed.
- 2.Costs of the application are awarded to the plaintiff.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 159 and 165 of the Constitution; Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Civil Procedure Act and Rules (Order 2 Rule 15)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "County Government of Nandi v Morong & another (Environment & Land Case E015 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5007 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (plaint dated 12/7/2024; notice of motion dated 11/6/2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5007/eng@2025-07-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.