Luka v Tunai & 6 others; Mara Triangle National Reserve & another (Interested Parties) (Petition E008(7) of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8691 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a petition challenging a Mara land lease because corruption complaints belong to the EACC, not this court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the instant petition
- 2.Whether the instant Notice of Preliminary Objection is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the ELC has jurisdiction over a petition premised on alleged contravention of Chapter 6 of the Constitution and the Leadership and Integrity Act
The court held it lacks jurisdiction; integrity and corruption complaints fall to the EACC and criminal justice system, not the ELC
Article 75(1) sets conduct standards for state officers, but contraventions are dealt with by independent constitutional bodies such as the EACC and the National Police. Enforcement of the Leadership and Integrity Act runs through the criminal justice system, which is outside the jurisdiction conferred by Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the ELC Act.
Whether the Petition raised a constitutional question justifying a constitutional petition
No - the dispute over the lease of LR 212713/1 is a normal civil land dispute that ought to have been filed as an ordinary ELC matter
The real complaint was the alleged illegal alienation and leasing of the suit property, with the 2nd Respondent asserting a lawful lease from the 3rd Respondent. The constitutional citations were a disguise; the constitutional question was not clear and the remedy lay under ordinary ELC jurisdiction and the doctrine of constitutional avoidance.
Whether the Petition offended the doctrine of exhaustion and ripeness
Yes - the Petitioner wrote to the DCI on 25th March 2025 and filed the Petition on 11th April 2025 without awaiting the outcome
The Petitioner had himself invoked investigative bodies (DCI and EACC) but did not wait for their response before filing. Premature resort to court contravened the exhaustion doctrine, as reinforced in Geofrey Muthinja v Samuel Muguna.
Whether the Preliminary Objection is merited
Merited; the Petition and Notice of Motion were struck out and dismissed in limine
Having found no constitutional question, breach of the exhaustion doctrine and want of jurisdiction, the court downed its tools per Owners of Motor Vessel Lillian S and allowed the objection with costs.
Legal principles established
#- A court without jurisdiction has no power to take any further step in a matter and must down its tools
- The Environment and Land Court's jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the ELC Act does not extend to enforcement of the Leadership and Integrity Act or direction of criminal investigations
- A litigant must exhaust alternative constitutional and statutory remedies before resorting to court; filing before exhaustion renders the suit premature
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 19th May 2025 is allowed with costs
- 2.The Petition and Notice of Motion Application dated 11th April 2025 are struck out and dismissed entirely in limine
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#All reliefs sought in the Petition and Notice of Motion, including declarations of contravention of Articles 10, 62(4) and 232, and orders directing investigations into the alienation of approximately 1000 acres of Mara Triangle Game Reserve
The court found it has no jurisdiction over the Petition as framed, as it raised no constitutional question, contravened the doctrine of exhaustion, and sought enforcement of the Leadership and Integrity Act and criminal investigation, matters outside ELC jurisdiction
Costs
The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 19th May 2025 allowed with costs (costs to the Respondents)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
For the above reasons, this court proceeds to allow the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 19th May 2025, with costs, and proceeds to strike out and dismiss the instant Petition and Notice of Motion Application even dated entirely in limine
this court finds and holds that it has no jurisdiction to hear and determines this Petition as framed.
The enforcement of Leadership and Integrity Act, is done through the criminal justice system, but not through the civil process, or through the Environment and Land Court Act.
It seems the Petitioner did not wait for response from the Director of Criminal Investigation(DCI) or the other public bodies that he had requested for information from. This Petition was brought to court prematurely and is against the doctrine of exhaustion.
A court of law downs its tools the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction
Issues in the judgment
#The petitioner and respondents are not named in full in the judgment body or coram beyond the Petitioner and 2nd Respondent (Pinecrest Holdings Limited); party names inferred from context
The petition case number is not stated beyond the filing date; only 'Petition dated 11th April 2025' appears
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Luka v Tunai & 6 others; Mara Triangle National Reserve & another (Interested Parties) (Petition E008(7) of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8691 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Petition dated 11th April 2025 (Narok). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8691/eng@2025-12-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.