Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedKilgoris ELC Appeal (from Kilgoris C.M ELC No. E002 of 2024) - appeal number not stated in judgment· [2025] KEELC 8042 (KLR)

Munene & another v County Government of Narok & 8 others (Environment and Land Appeal E007 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8042 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 November 2025
MMM.N Mwanyale
2,239 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

#

Landowners in Kenya must first use the county's planning dispute process before going to court over roads — skipping it cost these appellants their case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a first appeal to the Environment and Land Court at Kilgoris against the judgment of Hon. C.W Waswa SRM in Kilgoris C.M ELC No. E002 of 2024, in which the undefended suit by the 1st Appellant (with the 2nd Appellant) seeking re-establishment and opening of an access/public road connecting Migingo Estate to the Kilgoris–Kisii tarmac road was struck out as time barred under section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act. The Appellants raised 28 grounds arguing, among other things, that the limitation period was wrongly calculated, that public land cannot be affected by adverse possession, and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction over adverse possession claims. The Respondents (1st to 4th only) supported the striking out and argued the suit was prematurely filed and that the alleged road was not gazetted. M.N Mwanyale J re-evaluated the pleadings and held that the dispute was in substance a Physical and Land Use Planning dispute under the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, whose internal dispute resolution mechanism - first the County Executive Committee member, then the County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee with a further appeal to the ELC - was never exhausted. Relying on Speaker of National Assembly v Njenga Karume and Samson Chembe Vuko, the court held the trial court was bereft of jurisdiction, set aside the trial judgment as a nullity, struck out the suit, and struck out the appeal with costs to the 1st to 4th Respondents, while granting the Appellants liberty to institute the dispute in the proper forum.

Key legal issues

#
01

Nature of the dispute and jurisdiction of the trial court

Holding

The dispute was a Physical and Land Use Planning dispute under the PLUPA; the trial court lacked jurisdiction because the internal dispute resolution mechanism (CEC, then County Physical and Land Use Planning Liaison Committee) was not exhausted

Reasoning

The amended plaint sought re-establishing and opening of an access/public road, a physical and land use development matter reserved for the County Government under sections 45(1) and 46(b) of the PLUPA. Section 40(4) provides an appeal to the County Liaison Committee and section 40(7) an appeal to the ELC. The Appellants bypassed these mechanisms, and the suit was prematurely filed before the Magistrate's court, which was thereby bereft of jurisdiction.

p. 4
02

Whether the appeal was merited

Holding

The appeal was struck out on jurisdictional grounds without consideration of the merits

Reasoning

Since the trial court had no jurisdiction, its decision was a nullity and was set aside. The first appellate court declined to dwell on the merits of the appeal, striking it out but granting leave to institute the dispute in the proper forum.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Where an Act of Parliament prescribes a clear procedure for redress of a particular grievance, that procedure must be strictly followed, and failure to exhaust it ousts the jurisdiction of other forums
  • A decision by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The judgment of the trial magistrate delivered on 30th January 2025 is set aside as a nullity
  2. 2.The suit before the trial court is struck out
  3. 3.The appeal is struck out with costs to the 1st to 4th Respondents
  4. 4.The Appellants are at liberty to institute the dispute in the proper forum

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Limitation of Actions Actsection 7, section 41
  • Physical and Land Use Planning Actsection 3(e), section 40(4), section 40(7), section 45(1), section 46(b), section 2
  • Physical Planning Act (repealed)not specified

Cases cited (6)

  • Registered Trustee Gospel Evangelistic Church of Kenya vs. Mwangi and 11 Others
    KEELC 21371
  • Sammy Mwangangi and 10 Others vs. Commissioner of Lands and 3 Others
  • Biwotts and Another vs. Amin Tanui
    (2025) KEELC 3391
  • Selle and another vs Associated Motor Boat and 3 Others
  • Samson Chembe Vuko and Another Vs. Nelson Kilumo and 2 Others
    2016 eKLR
  • Speaker of National Assembly Vs. Njenga Karume
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court, Kilgoris
Kilgoris C.M ELC No. E002 of 2024
Jurisdiction invoked
First appellate jurisdiction over a subordinate court ELC suit; appeal admitted by the ELC

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Munene & another v County Government of Narok & 8 others (Environment and Land Appeal E007 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8042 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kilgoris ELC Appeal (from Kilgoris C.M ELC No. E002 of 2024) - appeal number not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8042/eng@2025-11-20

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