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 the judgment· [2025] KEELC 7758 (KLR)

County Government of Kajiado v Tata Chemicals Magadi Limited (Environment and Land Case E089 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7758 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 November 2025
MMM.D. Mwangi
2,250 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kajiado County lost its rates case against Tata Chemicals because it filed in the wrong court, and now must start over elsewhere at its own cost.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Tata Chemicals Magadi Limited, the defendant, brought a Notice of Motion dated 10th February 2025 under Rule 15(1)(b), (c) and (d) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 25 of the repealed Rating Act, seeking to strike out the County Government of Kajiado's plaint dated 10th September 2024 for want of jurisdiction. The applicant contended that, at the time of filing, Section 25 of the Rating Act vested jurisdiction for recovery of rates in subordinate courts of the first class, not the Environment and Land Court. The plaintiff opposed, relying on Articles 162(2)(b) and 165(3)(a) of the Constitution and Sections 13(1) and (2) and 26(3) and (4) of the Environment and Land Court Act, and argued that Section 25 did not oust the ELC's jurisdiction and that magistrates' courts were anyway capped at Kshs. 20 million under Section 7(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act. M.D. Mwangi J held that jurisdiction is determined as at the date of filing; the 'notwithstanding' clause in Section 25 operated as a legislative ouster of pecuniary limits and vested full jurisdiction over rates-recovery suits in first-class subordinate courts; the ELC Act did not supersede that specific allocation; and the later repeal by the National Rating Act, 2024 could not retroactively cure the defect. Following Machakos County Government v Kapiti Plains Estate Limited and Joseph Muthee Kamau, the court struck out the plaint for want of jurisdiction, awarded costs of the application and the suit to the defendant, but preserved the plaintiff's right to file the claim in a court of competent jurisdiction.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ELC had original jurisdiction over the suit for recovery of rates as at 10th September 2024

Holding

The ELC lacked original jurisdiction; Section 25 of the repealed Rating Act expressly vested jurisdiction for recovery of rates in subordinate courts of the first class, overriding the Magistrates' Courts Act pecuniary limits, and the ELC Act did not supersede that specific statutory allocation.

Reasoning

Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the ELC Act confer jurisdiction over rates disputes in general terms, but jurisdiction flows only from the Constitution or legislation and is not assumed where a specific statutory allocation exists. At the date of filing, Section 25 of the Rating Act was operational and, by its 'notwithstanding' clause, gave first-class subordinate courts unrestricted jurisdiction over rates recovery suits. The subsequent repeal by the National Rating Act, 2024 could not retroactively validate proceedings filed in a court without jurisdiction. The court followed Machakos County Government v Kapiti Plains Estate Limited.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Jurisdiction is determined as at the date of filing of the suit, not retrospectively by subsequent legislative changes; repeal of the governing statute does not cure a jurisdictional defect existing at institution
  • A suit filed in a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and the defect is incurable ab initio
  • A 'notwithstanding anything to the contrary' clause in a statute operates as a legislative ouster overriding conflicting statutory limitations, including pecuniary ceilings

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaint dated 10th September 2024 is struck out for want of jurisdiction
  2. 2.The Plaintiff/Respondent shall bear the costs of both the application and the suit
  3. 3.The determination is without prejudice to the Plaintiff's right to institute the claim before a court of competent jurisdiction as prescribed by law
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) and Article 165(3)(a) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, as read with Sections 13(1) and (2) of the Environment and Land Court Act (Cap. 8D); contested against Section 25 of the Rating Act (Cap. 267)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "County Government of Kajiado v Tata Chemicals Magadi Limited (Environment and Land Case E089 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7758 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7758/eng@2025-11-06

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