Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNot stated in judgment (ELC suit, Machakos)· [2025] KEELC 6463 (KLR)

Maingi v National Land Commission & another (Land Case E050 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6463 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 September 2025
AKA. Y. Koross
2,643 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Machakos determines the 1st defendant's preliminary objection dated 29/01/2024 against the plaintiff's suit dated 25/10/2023, which sought nullification of compulsory acquisition compensation awards of Kshs 33,241,003.95 and Kshs 19,011,750.45 and payment of balances of Kshs 90,459,424 with interest. The PO contended that the suit violated Sections 133C(2), (6) and (8) of the Land Act and that the court lacked jurisdiction. The court framed two issues: whether the PO met the legal threshold, and whether it had jurisdiction. On the first, applying Mukisa Biscuit and the IEBC v Cheperenger decision, the court held the PO failed the threshold because contested factual matters (such as whether the compulsory acquisition process was adhered to, and whether the 2nd defendant was a stranger) required evidence. On the second, notwithstanding the PO's failure, the court addressed jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the ELC Act. It found that the Land Acquisition Tribunal, established under Section 133A of the Land Act and operational from 11/09/2023, has original and appellate jurisdiction over compulsory acquisition disputes under Section 133C, with appeals to the ELC on questions of law only under Section 133D. Guided by the exhaustion doctrine (Murage, NGOs Co-ordination Board v EG) and recent ELC decisions, the court held the plaintiff moved prematurely and that it lacked jurisdiction. The PO was dismissed (no orders as to costs), the entire suit was struck out with costs to the defendants, and the file was marked closed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the PO meets the legal threshold

Holding

It does not, because the plaint and defence raise contested matters of fact requiring evidence.

Reasoning

Applying Mukisa Biscuit, a PO must be a pure point of law on the assumption that pleaded facts are correct. Here, whether the compulsory acquisition process was adhered to and whether the 2nd defendant is a stranger to the allegations are factual questions requiring evidence, so the objection fails the threshold even though it could dispose of the suit.

p. 2
02

Whether the court has jurisdiction over the suit

Holding

No; the dispute falls within the LAT's jurisdiction under Section 133C of the Land Act, and the plaintiff moved the court prematurely without exhausting that statutory remedy.

Reasoning

Section 133C(1),(6) and (8) gives LAT both appellate and original jurisdiction over compulsory acquisition disputes, and Section 133D allows appeals to the ELC on questions of law only. The suit, challenging compensation awards and payment balances, falls squarely within LAT's mandate, which was operational on 11/09/2023 before the suit was filed.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law on assumed pleaded facts, without need to ascertain facts
  • Where a court lacks jurisdiction it must down its tools
  • Where an alternative statutory remedy exists, it must be exhausted before resorting to the court (exhaustion doctrine)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection dated 29/01/2024 is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs.
  2. 2.The entire suit is hereby struck out with costs to the defendants.
  3. 3.This file is hereby effectively marked as closed.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land Act, No. 6 of 2012 (as amended, 2019)Sections 112, 127, 128, 133A, 133C(1)-(8), 133D, 148(5)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 23(2), 47(3), 159, 162(1)-(4), 169
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 13(1)
  • Fair Administrative Action ActNot specified

Cases cited (8)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs. West End Distributors
    (1969) EA 696
  • Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission v Cheperenger & 2 others
    [2015] KESC 2 (KLR)
  • Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lilian S” v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    (1989)
  • Samuel Kamau Macharia v Kenya Commercial Bank
    (2012) eKLR
  • Benard Murage vs Fine Serve Africa Limited & 3 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • NGOs Co-ordination Board v EG & 4 others; Katiba Institute (Amicus Curiae)
    [2023] KESC 17 (KLR)
  • Kigathi v Kenya National Highways Authority & another; National Land Commission (Interested Party)
    [2025] KEELC 993 (KLR)
  • Thuo & 160 others v National Land Commission & 4 others; Kenya Human Rights Commission (Interested Party)
    [2022] KEELC 3951 (KLR)
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act

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.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Maingi v National Land Commission & another (Land Case E050 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6463 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (ELC suit, Machakos). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6463/eng@2025-09-30

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