Solutions & another v Abdul Rashid Obado & Rameez Osman (Sued as Official Representatives of Thika AP Section 9 CBO) & another (Environment and Land Case E097 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 338 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court threw out a mosque construction dispute because, at its heart, it was a contract fight, not a land fight.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction over a dispute arising from a construction contract on land
The Court lacks jurisdiction; the dispute is commercial in substance, the land being merely the backdrop, and the Preliminary Objection succeeds
The Court applied Article 162(2)(b), Section 13 of the ELC Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Karisa Chengo to confirm that ELC jurisdiction is limited to land and environment disputes. Applying the Predominant Purpose Test from Suzanne Achieng Butler, it found that the claim, though situated on land, was governed in substance by obligations under a construction contract, with no creation, transfer or enforcement of proprietary rights in land. The land was merely the stage for a commercial disagreement.
Whether the Preliminary Objection raises a pure point of law under Mukisa Biscuit
Yes - the objection hinged on the Court's authority to hear a commercial dispute and could be determined at the threshold without evidence
Relying on Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd, the Court accepted the Applicants' argument that jurisdiction here engaged questions of fact and the character of the parties' rights, but held that the objection ultimately concerned the Court's authority - a pure point of law - and could properly be disposed of without traversing evidence.
Legal principles established
#- Where the dominant character of a claim is commercial, the presence of land alone cannot transform it into a matter for the Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction must be traced to Article 162(2)(b) and the Environment and Land Court Act and the Court must satisfy itself at the threshold that the subject matter falls within its ambit
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 5th September 2025 is upheld
- 2.The Notice of Motion Application dated 4th June 2025 and the Plaint of even date are dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Solutions & another v Abdul Rashid Obado & Rameez Osman (Sued as Official Representatives of Thika AP Section 9 CBO) & another (Environment and Land Case E097 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 338 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/338/eng@2026-01-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.