Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutConstitution Petition dated 19th June 2025 (Kwale ELC)· [2026] KEELC 1362 (KLR)

Office of the County Attorney - Kwale County & another (Suing on behalf of the Public) v Gombato (1975) Limited & 2 others (Petition E011 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1362 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
5 March 2026
5,127 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~21 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Kwale struck out a constitutional petition against a bank's land auction, ruling ordinary land disputes belong in civil suits, not constitutional petitions.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The National Bank of Kenya Limited, the 2nd Respondent, raised a preliminary objection dated 24th November 2025 against a Constitution Petition filed on 19th June 2025 by Abdalla Saidi Rachitu, Chairman of the Gombato Farm Community, suing on behalf of the public. The Petitioners challenged the Bank's exercise of its statutory power of sale over LR No 8517/9 CR 26610 in Msambweni, Kwale County, following the 1st Respondent's default on a Kshs 2,000,000 loan, contending that auction advertisements describing the land as vacant were false representations and non-disclosure contrary to the Constitution and the Consumer Protection Act, 2012. They sought declarations, nullification of any sale, and a permanent injunction. The 2nd Respondent argued the Petition was an ordinary dispute dressed as a constitutional matter, offending the doctrine of constitutional avoidance. The court framed three issues: the threshold for a preliminary objection, whether constitutional issues were raised, and costs. Relying on Mukisa Biscuits and Karata Ernest, the court found the objection a pure point of law. Applying Anarita Karimi Njeru, Communications Commission of Kenya, and Royal Media Services, it held the Petition lacked precision on rights infringed and that challenges to a chargee's statutory power of sale are resolved under the Land Act, 2012 in ordinary suits. Allowing the objection, the court struck out the Petition and awarded costs to the 2nd Respondent, to be borne by the Petitioners.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the preliminary objection met the threshold of a preliminary objection

Holding

It was a pure point of law touching on jurisdiction and the doctrine of constitutional avoidance, requiring no evidence

Reasoning

Applying Mukisa Biscuits and Karata Ernest, the court found the objection rested on the pure question of law whether an alternative statutory remedy existed, obviating need for factual inquiry.

p. 6
02

Whether the Petition raised constitutional issues

Holding

It did not; the dispute over exercise of statutory power of sale was an ordinary civil dispute dressed as a constitutional petition

Reasoning

The Petitioners failed to plead with precision the rights infringed. The exercise of a chargee's statutory power of sale is governed by the Land Act, 2012, and disputes thereon are resolved in an ordinary suit, not a constitutional petition.

p. 9
03

Costs of the preliminary objection

Holding

Costs follow the event; the 2nd Respondent was awarded costs of the objection and the Petition

Reasoning

Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides costs follow the event unless the court orders otherwise; the successful 2nd Respondent was entitled to compensation for defending the suit.

p. 10

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law, not dependent on ascertainment of facts
  • Where an adequate alternative remedy exists, a party ought to pursue it rather than constitutionalise an ordinary dispute
  • A constitutional petition must set out with reasonable precision the provision infringed and the manner of infringement

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 24th November 2025 raised by the 2nd Respondent be and is hereby allowed
  2. 2.The Petition dated 19th June 2025 be and is hereby struck out for it offends the Doctrine of Constitution Avoidance and does not meet the threshold of a Constitution Petition
  3. 3.The costs of the Preliminary Objection and the Petition to be awarded to the 2nd Respondent to be borne by the Petitioners
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2) of the Constitution 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, "Office of the County Attorney - Kwale County & another (Suing on behalf of the Public) v Gombato (1975) Limited & 2 others (Petition E011 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1362 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Constitution Petition dated 19th June 2025 (Kwale ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1362/eng@2026-03-05

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.