Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment as provided· [2026] KEELC 1987 (KLR)

Kivuti v Embu Water & Sanitation Company Limited (Environment and Land Case E027 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1987 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
19 February 2026
KBK. BOR
1,687 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court stayed a landowner's compensation suit, ruling compulsory acquisition disputes must first go to the Land Acquisition Tribunal before ordinary courts can act.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Defendant, a public water and sanitation utility in Embu County, filed a preliminary objection dated 28/2/2025 seeking to strike out the Plaintiff's suit on the ground that the court lacked jurisdiction, the claim being founded on matters of compulsory acquisition reserved to the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Sections 133C(6) and (8) of the Land Act. It explained that following its request under Section 107 of the Land Act, the National Land Commission compulsorily acquired several of the Plaintiff's parcels for the Embu Sewerage Treatment Plant and that it deposited compensation of Kshs. 26,749,606/- with the Cooperative Bank of Kenya under Section 115. It relied on the Fair Administrative Actions Act, Section 9(2) and (3), and the exhaustion doctrine, citing Geofirey Muthinja Kabiru and Speaker of the National Assembly v Karume. The Plaintiff opposed, invoking Mukisa Biscuits on the definition of a preliminary objection, arguing the objection was fact-laden and that his claim concerned trespass, negligence, loss of use and erecting site houses on parcels 6982-6984 without consent, some parcels allegedly not having been acquired at all. The court framed one issue: whether it lacked jurisdiction under Section 133C(6) and (8) and whether the suit should be struck out. It found the Defendant's own pleading an admission that a substantial part of the claim concerned compulsory acquisition, held that claims over the acquisition fell within the Tribunal's mandate, but declined to strike out the suit. Instead it stayed the suit so the Plaintiff could pursue the Tribunal, reserving the residual claim for the court thereafter, with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction over disputes premised on compulsory acquisition of land

Holding

The court accepted that a substantial part of the Plaintiff's claim relates to compulsory acquisition and must go to the Land Acquisition Tribunal, but rather than striking out the suit, it stayed the claim pending exhaustion of that statutory remedy

Reasoning

The Defendant admitted it requested the NLC to compulsorily acquire the parcels and deposited compensation of Kshs. 26,749,606/- with the Cooperative Bank of Kenya under Sections 107 and 115 of the Land Act. This was an admission that a substantial part of the claim concerns compulsory acquisition. Claims over acquisition of land for the sewerage plant fall under Section 133C of the Land Act, within the Tribunal's mandate. The court therefore stayed the suit rather than striking it out, reserving the residual claim for later determination.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Claims arising from the compulsory acquisition of land fall within the exclusive mandate of the Land Acquisition Tribunal under Section 133C of the Land Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Stay of the suit to give the Plaintiff an opportunity to pursue his claim before the Land Acquisition Tribunal
  2. 2.The portion of the Plaintiff's claim falling outside the purview of the Land Acquisition Tribunal to be determined by the court after the Plaintiff has exhausted the channels prescribed in Section 133 of the Land Act
  3. 3.Costs of the application to be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Land ActSection 133C (6) and (8)
  • Land ActSection 133
  • Land ActSection 107
  • Land ActSection 115
  • Fair Administrative Actions ActSection 9 (2) and (3)
  • Constitution of Kenyaright to property (referred to generally)

Cases cited (4)

  • Kariuki Muigwa v National Land Commission & Another
    [2021] eKLR
  • Geofirey Muthinja Kabiru & 2 Others v Samuel Munga Henry & 1756 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Speaker of the National Assembly v Karume
    [2008] 1 KLR 426
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Company Limited v West End Distribution Limited
    [1969] EA 696
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 133C (6) and (8) of the Land Act (jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Tribunal) raised in a preliminary objection

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kivuti v Embu Water & Sanitation Company Limited (Environment and Land Case E027 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 1987 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1987/eng@2026-02-19

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