Mage & another v Verona Huruma Sacco (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E099 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2789 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court struck out a land dispute suit because the plaintiffs, as co-operative society members, should have taken it to the Co-operative Tribunal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction - whether the dispute is referable to the Co-operative Tribunal
The suit is struck out for lack of jurisdiction; the dispute falls within section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act.
The plaintiffs admitted being members of the defendant society, and their claim for compensation for breach of contractual obligations concerning the suit property is a dispute concerning the business of a co-operative society between members and the society. Such disputes must be referred to the Co-operative Tribunal under section 76. The court cannot adjudicate on breach of a contract that does not legally exist, and the tribunal's statutory jurisdiction ousts the court's.
Whether the letter of offer created a binding contract under section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act
The letter of offer was expressly subject to contract; since no formal agreement was executed, no binding contract arose and no suit for breach can be founded on it.
Applying Chinnock v The Marchioness of Ely as adopted in East African Fine Spinners v Bedi Investments, where a proposal or offer is assented to subject to a provision for a formal contract, the stipulation is a term of the assent and there is no agreement independent of it. Additionally, contracts for the disposition of an interest in land must be in writing, signed by all parties and attested under section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act, which was not satisfied here.
Threshold of a valid preliminary objection
The objection, if successful, is capable of finally disposing of the whole matter and thus attains the threshold of a pure point of law.
Because jurisdiction goes to the root of the court's power to make any step in the proceedings, an objection founded on lack of jurisdiction is a pure preliminary point of law capable of disposing of the entire suit without the need to delve into the evidential merits of the dispute.
Legal principles established
#- A court without jurisdiction must down its tools; jurisdiction is conferred by the Constitution or statute and cannot be assumed
- A letter of offer expressly stated to be subject to a formal contract is not binding where that formal contract never crystallises
- A suit on a contract for the disposition of an interest in land must comply with section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of Preliminary Objection dated 15th September 2025 is merited and the entire suit is struck out for lack of jurisdiction
- 2.Costs be awarded to the respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; Section 76 of the Co-operative Societies Act (CAP 490); Section 3(3) of the Law of Contract Act (Cap 23)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mage & another v Verona Huruma Sacco (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E099 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2789 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2789/eng@2026-05-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.