Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedLand Case E162 of 2025· [2025] KEELC 7839 (KLR)

Kariuki v Kariuki & 3 others (Land Case E162 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7839 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
13 November 2025
1,912 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled it cannot hear disputes about charges securing loans or company management—those belong to the High Court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants filed a preliminary objection dated 7th May, 2025 contending that the Environment and Land Court lacked jurisdiction because the suit was commercial in nature, suitable for the Commercial Division of the High Court. The plaintiff opposed, relying on National Land Commission v Afrison and Kanegeni v County Government of Nyeri, arguing the suit was hybrid but predominantly concerned land use and land administration. The court, per Mbogo C.G. J, framed one issue: whether it had jurisdiction. Adopting Mukisa Biscuits and John Musakali, it held the objection raised a pure point of law on jurisdiction. The plaint sought declarations that charges registered by the 4th defendant over Nairobi/Block 93/1508, 93/1509 and 93/1442 were null and void, cancellation of register entries, surrender of titles, accounts of rental income and proportional sharing of rent. The plaintiff alleged fraud, forgery and collusion in charging the properties to secure a KShs.320,000,000/- loan. Applying Co-operative Bank of Kenya v Patrick Kangethe Njuguna, the court held that creation of a charge is a disposition, not land use, and that disputes over mortgages, charges and collection of rents fall within the High Court's civil jurisdiction. The plaint disclosed no claim of use, ownership or occupation of the suit properties, and the dispute over management of the 3rd defendant was also a matter for the High Court. The preliminary objection was upheld, the court lacking jurisdiction, with the dispute to be placed before the High Court.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ELC has jurisdiction over a dispute centred on the charging of land as security for a loan and the management of a company

Holding

The ELC lacks jurisdiction; the dispute ought to be placed before the High Court

Reasoning

Applying Co-operative Bank of Kenya v Patrick Kangethe Njuguna, the court held that creation of a charge is a disposition, not land use, and mortgage/charge disputes fall within the High Court's civil jurisdiction. The plaint pleaded no claim of use, ownership or occupation of the suit properties; the prayers concerned validity of charges, cancellation of register entries and sharing of rental income, which are commercial matters for the High Court.

p. 5
02

Whether the preliminary objection qualifies as a pure point of law

Holding

Yes - the objection challenges jurisdiction, raising a pure point of law based on undisputed facts

Reasoning

Applying Mukisa Biscuits and John Musakali, the court found the objection rested on the pleadings and challenged the court's jurisdiction, a quintessential point of law that could dispose of the suit without trial.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A charge is an interest in land securing payment of money and its creation does not amount to use of land; disputes over charges, mortgages and collection of rents fall within the civil jurisdiction of the High Court, not the ELC
  • A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law based on undisputed facts with the potential to dispose of the suit

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of preliminary objection dated 7th May, 2025 is upheld
  2. 2.This court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute between the parties
  3. 3.The dispute ought to be placed before the High Court for determination

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land ActSection 2
  • Land ActSection 80
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 13
  • Employment and Labour Relations Court ActSection 12

Cases cited (6)

  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Company Limited -vs- West End Distributors
    (1969) EA 696
  • John Musakali vs. Speaker County of Bungoma & 4 others
    (2015) eKLR
  • National Land Commission v Afrison Export Import Limited & 10 others
    [2019] eKLR
  • Kanegeni v County Government of Nyeri
    (Constitutional Petition E008 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 9796 (KLR)
  • Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited v Patrick Kangethe Njuguna & 5 others
    [2017] KECA 79 (KLR)
  • Paramount Bank Limited vs. Vaqvi Syed Qamara & another
    [2017] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act (jurisdiction of the ELC); preliminary objection on jurisdiction

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kariuki v Kariuki & 3 others (Land Case E162 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7839 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Land Case E162 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7839/eng@2025-11-13

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