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 judgment· [2025] KEELC 5535 (KLR)

Koira v Naisewa (Environment and Land Case 592 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 5535 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 July 2025
904 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kajiado court ruled that land registration laws limiting boundary disputes apply only to registered land, so the lawsuit over an unregistered plot can proceed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The defendant raised a preliminary objection seeking to strike out the plaintiff's suit on two grounds: that the parties own completely different and distinct plots, and that the court lacks original jurisdiction. The objection was canvassed by written submissions. Adopting the Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Company Ltd v West End Distributors Limited definition, the court held that a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law unblurred by contested facts. The first ground, concerning ownership of distinct plots, was held to be a factual issue incapable of resolution as a preliminary objection. The second point, on non-joinder of a critical party, was rejected because Order 1 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that no suit shall be defeated by misjoinder or non-joinder of parties; the defendant's narration of a previous Machakos suit was also disallowed. The only substantive point was jurisdiction: the defendant contended that the suit is a boundary dispute barred by Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act, since Section 18(2) prohibits courts from entertaining boundary disputes over registered land unless determined under that section. Applying the holistic canon of statutory interpretation drawn from Adrian Kamotho Njenga v Kenya School of Law and Engineer Board of Kenya v Jesse Waweru Wahome, the court held that Section 18(2) applies only to registered land. The subject property, Plot No. 138/Oloosirkon Trading Centre, is not registered land, so the Land Registration Act does not apply and the court has the requisite jurisdiction. The preliminary objection was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court has original jurisdiction over the suit given Section 18 of the Land Registration Act

Holding

The preliminary objection fails because the subject plot is not registered land, so Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act do not apply and the court has jurisdiction.

Reasoning

The defendant argued that the cause of action is a boundary dispute, barred by Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act unless boundaries are first determined under that section. The court held the provision only applies to registered land. The subject plot, Plot No. 138/Oloosirkon Trading Centre, is not registered land, hence the Act does not apply and the court possesses the requisite jurisdiction. Reading statutes holistically confirms the limitation.

p. 3
02

Whether the defendant's first and second points qualify as preliminary objections

Holding

The first point (distinct ownership of plots) is factual and cannot be a preliminary objection; the second (non-joinder) fails because Order 1 rule 9 provides that no suit shall be defeated by non-joinder.

Reasoning

Applying the Mukisa Biscuit definition, a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law. Ownership of distinct plots is a factual matter requiring evidence. The non-joinder argument, together with narration of a previous Machakos suit, is not allowable in a preliminary objection, and Order 1 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules expressly provides that no suit shall be defeated by misjoinder or non-joinder of parties.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection is a point of law that must not be blurred by contested factual details.
  • A suit cannot be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties under Order 1 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  • Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act barring boundary-dispute actions applies only to registered land.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The defendant's preliminary objection is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the preliminary objection to the Plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Registration ActSections 18, 18(2), 19
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 rule 9

Cases cited (3)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Company Ltd. v West End Distributors Limited
    (1969) eKLR
  • Adrian Kamotho Njenga v Kenya School of Law
    (2017) eKLR
  • Engineer Board of Kenya v Jesse Waweru Wahome & 5 others
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; preliminary objection on jurisdiction considered under Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Koira v Naisewa (Environment and Land Case 592 of 2017) [2025] KEELC 5535 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5535/eng@2025-07-24

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