Chindoro & 20 others v Sub-County Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer, Kinango Sub-County & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E019 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6410 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment & Land Court in Kwale struck out a land dispute because the plaintiffs went to court before finishing the legally required land adjudication process.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Threshold of a preliminary objection
The objection satisfied the Mukisa Biscuit threshold as it raised a pure point of law on jurisdiction without requiring ascertainment of facts
The court applied the classic test in Mukisa Biscuit and Oraro v Mbaja: a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all pleaded facts are correct. Because the objection questioned the court's jurisdiction under Section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act, it was an issue of law properly raised as a preliminary objection.
Whether the court has jurisdiction over disputes in an ongoing adjudication section
The court lacks jurisdiction since the Gandini adjudication register had not become final and no written consent of the adjudication officer was obtained
Section 30(1) of the Land Adjudication Act bars institution of civil proceedings over land in an adjudication section until the register is final, save with the adjudication officer's written consent. The Gandini Adjudication Section was declared in 2014 and the register was not final. The consent, being a condition precedent, had to predate the filing of the suit, which the Plaintiffs did not obtain.
Doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies
The Plaintiffs were required to exhaust the internal dispute resolution mechanisms under Sections 13 to 29 of the Land Adjudication Act before coming to court
The Act provides elaborate quasi-judicial structures - the Adjudication Committee, Arbitration Board and appeal to the Minister whose decision is final. Following Murage, Karume and related authorities, where a statute provides a specific dispute resolution mechanism it must be exhausted; the court's role is supervisory, and aggrieved parties may only resort to judicial review or declaratory relief after exhaustion.
Costs of the preliminary objection
Each party to bear its own costs, in the court's discretion despite costs following the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Although Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that costs follow the event, the court, considering all prevailing circumstances and the facts of the case, found it just, fair and reasonable that each party bear its own costs.
Legal principles established
#- No person may institute, and no court may entertain, civil proceedings concerning an interest in land in an adjudication section until the adjudication register becomes final, except with the written consent of the adjudication officer, and that consent is a condition precedent which must predate the filing of the suit
- Where a statute prescribes a clear procedure or dispute resolution mechanism, that procedure must be strictly followed and exhausted before invoking the court's jurisdiction
- The role of the court in respect of ongoing land adjudication is supervisory only; it cannot usurp the functions of the Land Adjudication Officer or the quasi-judicial bodies set up under the Act
Court orders
#- 1.That the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 2nd April, 2025 be and is hereby sustained.
- 2.That it follows that the suit is hereby struck out as it has violated the principles of the doctrine of exhaustion.
- 3.That each party to bear its own costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (Environment and Land Court); objection founded on Article 159 read with Section 30 of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap. 284
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Kaviti & 3 others v Attorney General & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E130 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1458 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 1458 (KLR)11 Mar 2026applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chindoro & 20 others v Sub-County Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer, Kinango Sub-County & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E019 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6410 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (Notice of Motion dated 6th March 2025; Preliminary Objection dated 2nd April 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6410/eng@2025-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.