Musa v Kahara & another (Environment and Land Appeal E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3179 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out an appeal because the appellant was not the tenant facing rent distress, so he had no legal standing to sue.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the notice was a proper preliminary objection
The objection on jurisdiction and locus standi is a pure point of law capable of disposing of the suit, and thus a proper preliminary objection
The court applied the Mukisa Biscuits definition, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Hassan Ali Joho, and Quick Enterprises. The objection raised jurisdiction and standing, both of which are pure points of law requiring no ascertainment of facts and capable of disposing of the matter preliminarily.
Locus standi of the Appellant
The Appellant has no locus standi: the distress for rent and proclamation were issued against Ainashe Ahmed, the tenant, and the 1st Respondent, as new owner, had no tenancy with the Appellant
The 1st Respondent acquired the plot through a Kericho Kadhi's Court-sanctioned sale, validated by Narok County Government. Distress was authorised by a lawful court order against Ainashe Ahmed. The Appellant was neither distressed nor a party to those proceedings and had no tenancy, written or unwritten, with the new owner; he should have sought joinder if aggrieved.
Whether the court should determine jurisdiction and abuse of process
Having found the Appellant had no standing, the court found no reason to determine the jurisdiction or abuse of process issues
Since the appeal could not survive for want of standing, the remaining limbs of the preliminary objection were academic and the court declined to address whether the ELC had appellate jurisdiction over BPRT matters or whether the application was an abuse of process.
Legal principles established
#- A party with no locus standi cannot sustain a suit; the suit must fail
- A person who is not the tenant distressed for rent and is not a tenant of the owner has no capacity to bring an appeal against the registered owner
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 25th September 2025 is allowed with costs to the Respondents
- 2.The entire Appeal and the accompanying Application dated 24th July 2025 are struck out
- 3.The interim and/or temporary orders of injunction are vacated forthwith
- On appeal from
- Nakuru BPRT (Business Premises Rent Tribunal)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution; sections 13(1) and 13(4) of the Environment and Land Court Act; section 15 of the Landlord and Tenant (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments) Act, Cap 301 (raised by the Appellant; court did not reach the jurisdiction question)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Musa v Kahara & another (Environment and Land Appeal E013 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3179 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (ELC Appeal from Nakuru BPRT). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3179/eng@2026-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.