Kariuki v Cyka Fresh Limited & 3 others (Land Case E066 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1266 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Mombasa confirmed it can hear claims that land was fraudulently transferred, even when a bank charge is involved.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the ELC lacks jurisdiction over the suit because it is essentially a commercial dispute regarding a charge over land
The ELC has jurisdiction; the claim is distinguishable from the Co-operative Bank v Kang'ethe case because the core dispute is the allegedly fraudulent transfer of the suit property without the Plaintiff's consent, not merely the charge.
The court found the Plaintiff's claim centres on her alleged joint ownership and the fraudulent transfer of the property to the 1st Defendant company, which then charged it to the 4th Defendant Bank. Because the validity of the charge depends on whether the 1st Defendant acquired good title, the dispute is connected to the land itself. Section 2 of the Land Act defines 'Court' as the ELC, and Section 150 confers jurisdiction over disputes concerning land under the Act. The Kang'ethe restriction on contract disputes connected to use of land did not apply.
Whether the suit raises succession matters outside the ELC's jurisdiction
Although the ELC has no jurisdiction over succession matters, no succession issue arises; the dispute concerns how the property was transferred from the beneficiaries to the company, which the Family Division cannot resolve.
The court agreed that succession matters fall outside its jurisdiction, but held that the suit does not challenge the transmission of the property under the confirmed grant in Succession Cause No. 1795 of 2011. What is disputed is the subsequent transfer from the Plaintiff and other beneficiaries to the 1st Defendant company. That transfer dispute is a land matter within the ELC's jurisdiction and cannot be resolved by the Family Division of the High Court.
Whether the suit is incompetent, bad in law and an abuse of the court process
The Preliminary Objection in its entirety was misconceived and dismissed with costs.
Having found that the ELC has jurisdiction over the transfer dispute and that no succession matter was raised, the court found no basis for the objection that the suit was incompetent or an abuse of process. The court did not undertake an abuse-of-process analysis beyond concluding the objection lacked foundation, and dismissed the Preliminary Objection with costs to the Plaintiff.
Legal principles established
#- The ELC has jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the ELC Act over disputes concerning land, including where property is transferred without the knowledge or consent of one of the proprietors, notwithstanding that a charge is also involved.
- The ELC and subordinate courts have jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes, actions and proceedings concerning land under the Land Act, 2012.
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st Defendant's Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 7th May 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Section 150 of the Land Act, 2012
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kariuki v Cyka Fresh Limited & 3 others (Land Case E066 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1266 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Land Case E066 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1266/eng@2026-03-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.