Wainaina v Governor, Kajiado County & another (Land Case E126 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1345 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court struck out a Kajiado landowner's case because he sued the wrong people and used the wrong court procedure.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.What is my complaint/cause of action?
- 2.Against whom should my complaint/cause of action be directed to?
- 3.What remedies/reliefs do I intend to seek?
- 4.Which court/tribunal has the jurisdiction to consider and determine my complaint/cause of action and grant me the remedies/reliefs?
- 5.Are there any legal barriers to my intended action?
- 6.Considering the nature of my action and the remedies/reliefs I intend to seek, in what manner should I institute my suit?
- 7.Whether the Plaintiff's suit as presented is competent
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit was properly instituted against the Governor of Kajiado County and the CEC in charge of Lands
The Plaintiff sued non-legal entities incapable of suing or being sued; the County Government ought to have been sued
Section 6 of the County Governments Act makes the County Government a body corporate with perpetual succession capable of suing and being sued. Complaints against its officers or organs, such as the dispute resolution committee, must be directed at the County Government unless the officers are being sued in their personal capacities. Suing the Governor and CEC rendered the suit incompetent.
Whether judicial review orders of mandamus and prohibition could be granted in an ordinary civil suit
They could not; the proper avenues were Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules or a constitutional petition under Article 22
The court applied the Supreme Court's guidance in the Aluochier case that judicial review is a special jurisdiction and that a party seeking certiorari, mandamus and prohibition must comply with Order 53. Alternatively, Article 22 permits a constitutional petition under which Article 23 allows judicial review orders.
Whether the declaration of bona fide ownership and permanent injunction could issue before the dispute resolution committee's verdict
The orders were premature and pre-emptive and could not issue before the Plaintiff established legal ownership
The Plaintiff simultaneously sought a declaration that he is the bona fide owner and an order compelling release of the committee's verdict on the ownership dispute. Since the verdict might conclude that he is not the owner, the substantive orders could not be granted before the dispute resolution process concluded.
Legal principles established
#- A county government, not its Governor or CEC, is the proper legal entity to sue or be sued in respect of complaints against its officers or organs unless the officers are sued personally
- Judicial review orders of mandamus and prohibition must be sought under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules or via a constitutional petition under Articles 22 and 23, not in an ordinary civil suit
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's suit as presented is struck out as incompetent
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (suit filed as a Plaint); the judgment discusses Article 22/23 of the Constitution and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules as the proper avenues
Relief refused
#Order of mandamus compelling the Defendants to release the verdict of the Dispute Resolution Committee and issue a certificate of ownership
Judicial review orders cannot be granted in an ordinary civil suit; the procedure under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules or a constitutional petition under Article 22 applies
Order of prohibition against disposal, transfer or re-allocation of the plot
Judicial review orders cannot be granted in an ordinary civil suit; Order 53 procedure or a constitutional petition was required
Permanent injunction restraining interference with the suit property
The orders sought are premature and pre-emptive before ownership is established
Declaration that the Plaintiff is the bona fide owner of Plot B56
Premature and pre-emptive given the pending, undelivered dispute resolution committee verdict
Costs of the suit
Defendants did not enter appearance or participate; court made no orders as to costs
Costs
The court makes no orders as to costs considering that the Defendants did not enter appearance or participate in these proceedings.
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.
Upon evaluating the Plaintiff's suit against the above six (6) questions, it is obvious that the Plaintiff sued non-legal entities incapable of suing or being sued.
Obviously, these are not orders that may be granted in an ordinary civil suit. Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules stipulates the procedure and manner for seeking judicial review orders.
The orders sought are premature and pre-emptive. They cannot issue before the Plaintiff establishes that he is the legal owner of the suit property.
From the foregoing, the Plaintiff's suit as presented is incompetent and the same must be struck out, which the court hereby does. The court makes no orders as to costs considering that the Defendants did not enter appearance or participate in these proceedings.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wainaina v Governor, Kajiado County & another (Land Case E126 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1345 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1345/eng@2026-03-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.