Mato & another v Achieng (Environment and Land Appeal E035 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1648 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A widow who co-purchased and lived on Kitale land for decades won her case; the Environment and Land Court, not a succession court, hears such land disputes.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the respondent had locus standi to institute the suit without letters of administration
- 2.Whether the Environment and Land Court had jurisdiction over the dispute as opposed to a succession court
- 3.Whether the trial court erred in granting the temporary injunction
- 4.Whether the 1st appellant had superior rights over the suit property
Key legal issues
#Locus standi of the respondent to sue without letters of administration
The respondent, as joint purchaser and spouse with beneficial interest arising from long cohabitation and contribution, had standing; her interest was pleaded and evidenced
The court held locus standi signifies a right to be heard and the respondent pleaded and deposed to her interest, attaching sale agreements showing her substantial contribution as joint purchaser. Her beneficial interest arose during 29 years of cohabitation with the deceased, giving her a superior claim whether or not the marriage subsisted. A claim based on joint purchase does not require administration to sustain an interlocutory claim.
Jurisdiction of the ELC over proprietary claims involving trusts versus succession jurisdiction
The ELC, not the succession court, has jurisdiction over overriding interests such as constructive trusts arising from sale agreements
Relying on Article 162(2)(b), Section 13 of the ELC Act, Section 28(b) of the Land Registration Act and Supreme Court authority in Diasproperty and Shah, the court held that disputes over ownership, use and occupation of land including trusts fall to the ELC. The respondent's claim was based on purchaser's rights and survivorship, not succession, so no succession cause was required.
Whether the trial court erred in granting the temporary injunction
No error established; the respondent demonstrated a prima facie case and the discretion was properly exercised
Applying Giella and Nguruman principles and the restraint against interfering with discretionary decisions (Mbogo v Shah), the court found the trial court considered the pleadings and submissions and that the respondent had shown defined rights as joint purchaser from 1994. The 1st appellant's documentary evidence had no probative value under Section 106B of the Evidence Act, and her building plans related to a different parcel.
Rights of the 1st appellant as alleged customary-law wife from 2015
Property acquired before the second marriage remains with the first wife; the 1st appellant cannot dislodge accrued overriding interests
Citing Section 8 of the Marriage Act and MNK v POM, the court held that property acquired by the deceased and the respondent before the 2015 marriage belongs to them. The 1st appellant admitted she only began development in 2021 and did not state how she acquired the property before then. She took the risk of the second marriage aware of the former spouse's interests.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court of the first instance must re-appraise the entire record and come to its own independent findings
- An appellate court should not interfere with a trial judge's exercise of discretion unless it was exercised on wrong principles or perversely
- Proprietary interests in land founded on alleged trusts fall within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court, not the succession court
- A lack of jurisdiction removes a court's power to act
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed with costs
- 2.The lower court ruling dated 20/3/2024 is confirmed
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrates' Court (trial court, Kitale)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act (appeal transferred from the High Court for lack of jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#The appellants' appeal challenging the trial court's temporary injunction
The appeal was found incompetent and lacking merit; the respondent established a prima facie case and superior interest
Costs
Appeal dismissed with costs to the respondent
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.
The upshot is that I find the appeal incompetent and lacking merit. It is dismissed with costs. The lower court ruling is confirmed.
The role of an appellate court of the first instance is to relook at the entire record of the court below, rehearse and reappraise itself on both the facts, the evidence, the law, and come up with its independent findings.
Turning to jurisdiction, a court without jurisdiction has to put down its tools.
a Court of Appeal should not interfere with the exercise of the discretion of a judge, unless it is manifest from the case that the court exercised the discretion on wrong principles or that it did act perversely on the facts
Being a co-purchaser of the suit property and the part of being married to the deceased before 2015, gave the respondent rights to claim a superior right or interest over the suit property.
Locus standi signifies a right to be heard.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated 24 March 2026, which post-dates the memorandum of appeal (17/4/2024) and respondent's submissions (30/9/2025) by several months, appearing inconsistent with the internal chronology
Judgment cites Article 162(3)(b) of the Constitution whereas the constitutional provision establishing the Environment and Land Court is Article 162(2)(b)
Internal inconsistency on the date of the purchase: the plaint pleads a 1994 purchase, but the judgment later states the respondent 'pleaded that they jointly bought the land in 2004 as per the annexure marked ALA-(1)'
The statement of defence was said to have been filed and served but cannot be located in the record
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mato & another v Achieng (Environment and Land Appeal E035 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1648 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Appeal No. E035 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1648/eng@2026-03-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.