Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC Case (Kiambu Road suit properties; ELC Petition E014 of 2014 referenced)· [2025] KEELC 6384 (KLR)

Sanyi Jituan Sense Investment Limited & another v Equity Bank Kenya Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E024 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6384 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
3 July 2025
1,683 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed it can hear land-title disputes against banks, but chose to freeze the situation rather than grant a full injunction.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court determined a preliminary objection dated 17th May 2024 and an interlocutory application. The plaintiffs claimed to be registered owners of six plots on Kiambu Road and one in Kileleshwa, purchased from the 1st Defendant (a bank) by sub-lease for Kshs 913,900,000 under a loan agreement dated 24th December 2019. They sought declarations of proprietorship and a permanent injunction restraining the bank from exercising its statutory power of sale, alleging breach of warranty because third parties claim interests in the original titles from which the plots were excised. The 1st Defendant objected that the court lacked jurisdiction, contending the dispute concerned the exercise of a chargee's statutory power of sale and was commercial in nature, properly belonging to the High Court's Commercial Division, relying on Cooperative Bank v Kangethe Njuguna. The plaintiffs countered that the predominant issue was the validity of title, citing Suzane Butler v Redhill Investors. The court framed two issues: jurisdiction and injunctive relief. Applying the predominant purpose test, it held the plaint's prayers for declarations of title and injunctive protection of possession fall squarely within Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. The preliminary objection was dismissed. On the application, noting third-party claims and parallel proceedings, the court directed maintenance of status quo pending hearing of the suit, with costs to abide the outcome of the main suit.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ELC has jurisdiction over claims for declarations of title and injunction restraining statutory power of sale

Holding

The ELC has jurisdiction because the predominant issue is the validity of title, within Section 13 of the ELC Act

Reasoning

Applying the predominant purpose test from Suzane Butler v Redhill Investors, the court examined the plaint's prayers. The plaintiffs sought declarations that they are rightful registered proprietors of specific parcels and a permanent injunction against interference with possession. These are disputes relating to title and interests in land under Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the ELC Act, notwithstanding the commercial origin of the charge and loan facility.

p. 4
02

Whether injunctive relief should issue at the interlocutory stage

Holding

The court granted maintenance of status quo rather than a full injunction, given third-party claims and parallel proceedings

Reasoning

The court noted as a matter of record that third parties have surfaced asserting interests over the suit properties and that other proceedings are ongoing in other courts, including status quo orders in ELC Petition E014 of 2014. In these circumstances it considered preservation of the position pending full trial the appropriate course rather than granting final interlocutory relief.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a dispute involves both land and commercial elements, jurisdiction between the ELC and the High Court is determined by the predominant purpose of the transaction
  • Jurisdiction must be determined at the earliest opportunity once raised

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 17th May 2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.The status quo is to be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the suit
  3. 3.Costs shall abide outcome of the main suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 162(2)(b)
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 13

Cases cited (5)

  • Cooperative Bank of Kenya Limited Vs Patrick Kangethe Njuguna & 5 others
    (2017) eKLR
  • Nguruman Limited Vs Jan Bode Nielson & 2 others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Andrew Muriuki Wanjohi Vs Equity Building Society Limited & 2 others
    (2006) eKLR
  • Suzane Butler and 4 others Vs Redhill Investors and another
    (2017) eKLR
  • Owners of Motor Vessel "Lilian S" Versus Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited
    (1989) IKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution; Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sanyi Jituan Sense Investment Limited & another v Equity Bank Kenya Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E024 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6384 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case (Kiambu Road suit properties; ELC Petition E014 of 2014 referenced). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6384/eng@2025-07-03

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