Salat v Kanuli Information Technology Solutions Limited & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E045 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3098 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a borrower's suit over a bank's sale of charged land, ruling the dispute belongs in the High Court.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELC over disputes on enforcement of a charge and statutory power of sale
The Court lacks jurisdiction because the dominant issue is a question of accounts, a commercial dispute reserved for the High Court
Relying on Co-operative Bank v Kangethe Njuguna and P.J. Dave Flowers v Limuru Hills, the court held that a charge creates no dispute connected to the use of land; contracts within ELC jurisdiction must be incidental to use of land and exclude mortgages and charges. Reading the Plaint, the dominant issue was whether the Bank lawfully demanded Kshs. 32,998,454.42 from a guarantor limited to Kshs. 5,600,000, with all other prayers hinged on that determination - a commercial question of accounts.
Whether the suit is an abuse of process / relitigation of determined issues
This ground failed because it required factual inquiry beyond a preliminary objection
The 2nd Defendant's abuse-of-process ground rested on the pleadings and ruling in Kericho HC Case No. 5 of 2018 and Kericho HC Case No. E011 of 2024. To sustain it, the Court would have to examine those pleadings and the ruling - factual investigations incompatible with the nature of a preliminary objection, which must raise pure points of law without disputed facts.
Whether the statutory and equitable bar (innocent purchaser, issue estoppel, laches) ground could stand
Not determined, being unnecessary after the jurisdiction finding
Ground (3) raised the 5th Defendant's protection as an innocent purchaser under section 99 of the Land Act, issue estoppel and laches. Since the Court had already found that it lacked jurisdiction, the question did not require determination.
Whether the sub judice argument raised only by the 5th Defendant could be entertained
No - the preliminary objection did not raise sub judice, and new issues cannot be introduced in submissions
The Court noted the 2nd Defendant's preliminary objection did not plead sub judice. Citing FMS v MAS and Republic v Chairman Public Procurement Administrative Review Board ex parte Zapkass, it held that submissions are not pleadings and new issues raised in submissions are best ignored.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law and cannot depend on factual inquiries or evidence
- New issues raised for the first time in submissions should be disregarded as submissions are not pleadings
- Disputes on the exercise of a statutory power of sale and accounts under a charge fall within the High Court's civil jurisdiction, not the ELC
Court orders
#- 1.The 2nd Defendant's Preliminary Objection dated 15th October, 2025 is upheld as merited
- 2.The suit is struck out
- 3.Costs of the suit and the preliminary objection awarded to the 2nd and 5th Defendants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court Act, section 13; Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution considered on a preliminary objection
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Salat v Kanuli Information Technology Solutions Limited & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E045 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3098 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Environment & Land Case (unspecified number), Kericho. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3098/eng@2026-05-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.