Registered Trustees Reformed Church of East Africa v Ministry of Roads, Transport & Public Works, Uasin Gishu & another (Environment and Land Case E023 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2966 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Eldoret dismissed an attempt to strike out a church's land trespass suit, confirming that trespass claims are not boundary disputes barred from court.
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 court is vested with the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's suit and consequently whether the preliminary objection is merited
- 2.Whether the suit, being premised on alleged boundary interference, is barred by sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act
- 3.Whether the suit contravenes sections 2, 28 and 29 of the Land Registration Act on overriding interests (easements and rights of way)
- 4.Whether failure to attach a Board Resolution authorising the deponent is fatal to the suit
- 5.Whether the suit is an abuse of the court process
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit is barred by sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act as a boundary dispute
Ground 1 not merited; the suit is premised on trespass/encroachment, not a boundary dispute, so the court's jurisdiction is not ousted.
The court examined the plaint's cause of action and reliefs sought and concluded the claim is substantially about trespass and encroachment through construction of passway roads. The survey exercise instructed by the plaintiff was aimed at proving trespass, not fixing boundaries. Since the dispute is not one as to boundaries of registered land, section 18(2) does not divest the court of jurisdiction in the first instance.
Whether grounds 2 and 4 (overriding interests/easements and abuse of process) are pure points of law
Both grounds fail as they are marred by contested facts requiring evidence and the exercise of judicial discretion.
Applying the Mukhisa Biscuit test and the Supreme Court's decision in Aviation & Allied Workers Union, the court found that determining whether construction of the passway road constitutes an easement or whether the suit is an abuse of process would require adducing evidence and exercising discretion, so neither ground qualifies as a proper preliminary objection.
Whether failure to attach a Board Resolution authorising the deponent is fatal to the suit
Ground 3 not merited; the failure is not fatal, though the plaintiff was directed to regularize by filing the necessary documents before close of pleadings.
The plaintiff is a body corporate under the Trustees Act and a board resolution would ordinarily authorise institution of suit, but no Kenyan statute makes production of such a resolution a mandatory prerequisite to filing suit or swearing an affidavit. Following Said Bin Seif Properties and related authorities, courts should be slow to doubt a deponent's stated authority absent prima facie material, and striking out on that basis is wrong.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law on assumed facts and cannot be raised where facts must be ascertained or judicial discretion exercised
- Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act ousts the court's first-instance jurisdiction over boundary disputes of registered land unless boundaries have been determined under the Act
- A suit founded on trespass or encroachment is not a boundary dispute barred by sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act
- There is no Kenyan law making a board resolution a mandatory prerequisite to filing suit or swearing an affidavit by a body corporate, and failure to attach one is not fatal at a preliminary stage
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 4th August, 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the preliminary objection to the plaintiff
- 3.The plaintiff is directed to regularize its position and file all the necessary documents (including the Board Resolution) before the close of pleadings
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; objection based on sections 18, 19, 2, 28 and 29 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012
Relief refused
#1st Defendant's prayer to strike out the plaintiff's suit with costs
None of the four grounds of the preliminary objection was merited; grounds 1, 2 and 4 were not pure points of law and ground 3 was not fatal
Costs
Preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.
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.
In view of the foregoing, it is the finding of this court that the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 4th August, 2025 is not merited and the same is hereby dismissed with costs to the plaintifi.
In this case, having held that the notice of Preliminary Objection is not merited I find that the plaintifi is entitled to costs.
The plaintifi’s cause of action is contained at paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 7 of the plaint, which I have carefully looked at as well as the orders sought therein.
To strike out pleadings of a corporation on a preliminary objection such as that which was taken in this case is in my opinion very wrong.
Issues in the judgment
#Names of the 1st and 2nd defendants do not appear in the judgment extract; parties are referred to only by role
The case number of the suit is not stated anywhere in the judgment extract
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Registered Trustees Reformed Church of East Africa v Ministry of Roads, Transport & Public Works, Uasin Gishu & another (Environment and Land Case E023 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2966 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the extract (plaint dated 25.04.2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2966/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.