Chelogoi v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions & another; Shah & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E060 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1291 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a landowner's attempt to block a DPP prosecution over disputed Loresho land, because he wasn't the person actually arrested.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELC over judicial review of a prosecutorial decision
The ELC has jurisdiction because the impugned directive is tied to occupation and possession of land, the predominant issue being land-related
Relying on Republic v Chengo, the court noted the ELC, ELRC and High Court have equal status but distinct jurisdiction. However, jurisdiction is fixed by the predominant issue. Since the DPP directive directly concerns occupation of the suit property and its implementation would remove persons from land, the ELC is not divested merely because the decision sits within the criminal justice system, following Okwaro v DCI.
Locus standi of the Applicant
The Applicant lacked standing because he was neither investigated, arrested nor charged under the impugned directive, which targeted unidentified occupants
The DPP letter did not name the Applicant or specific persons. The only person arrested and charged was his alleged employee. The Applicant produced no evidence that he was inhabiting the land when the letter was authored, and was improperly litigating on behalf of third parties capable of pursuing their own remedies.
Abuse of court process
The summons was not an abuse of process; prior suits targeted earlier criminal processes, not the 24th July 2025 decision
The earlier applications (Misc Criminal Applications E479 and E007 of 2023, and Constitutional Petition E155 of 2024) related to earlier criminal processes, particularly the 2023 criminal case. The present summons targets a subsequent administrative action of 24th July 2025. Abuse is not established merely because a dispute gives rise to several proceedings in different fora.
Whether leave should be granted under Order 53
Leave refused: no arguable case with a reasonable chance of success, and non-joinder of the directly affected employee was fatal
Having elected the Order 53 route, the Applicant was bound by the mandatory leave requirement. He failed to show an arguable case; the directly affected person (his employee) had not challenged the DPP's decision nor been joined; civil and criminal matters can run concurrently notwithstanding pending civil suits.
Legal principles established
#- Jurisdiction is determined by the predominant issue and substance of the dispute rather than the form of relief; criminal elements do not automatically oust the ELC's jurisdiction where the core issue concerns land use, occupation or possessory rights.
- Judicial review is not suited to resolving contested factual issues, and an applicant must establish a sufficient nexus with the impugned administrative action at the leave stage.
Court orders
#- 1.The Chamber Summons application dated 1st August, 2025 is dismissed with costs.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chelogoi v Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions & another; Shah & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E060 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1291 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Judicial Review (Chamber Summons dated 1st August 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1291/eng@2026-03-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.