Equity Bank Limited & another v Kinjunje Gardens Limited & 7 others (Environment and Land Case 941 & 947 of 2016 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 3386 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court transferred a loan recovery suit to the High Court, confirming that money claims secured by land belong in the Commercial Division.
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 Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 12th February 2026 is merited, i.e. whether this Court has jurisdiction over the dispute as pleaded in the amended plaint
Key legal issues
#Whether the ELC has jurisdiction over a claim founded on a loan facility secured by charges over land, where the plaint seeks monetary recovery for breach of contract
The ELC lacks jurisdiction; the dispute is predominantly commercial and belongs to the High Court (Commercial and Tax Division).
The court examined the amended plaint and found the cause of action arises from a letter of offer dated 9th December 2014 advancing a loan facility, secured by charges over Dagoretti/Riruta properties. The orders sought relate primarily to breach of contract and recovery of monies owed, not to title, use or occupation of land. Applying the predominant purpose test from Suzane Butler v Redhill Investors, the transaction is predominantly for the provision of money, so the High Court is the proper forum.
Whether a preliminary objection on jurisdiction attains the threshold of a pure point of law
Yes - a jurisdictional objection, if successful, can dispose of the whole suit and is a pure point of law.
Relying on the Mukisa Biscuit test, the court noted that a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct. Since want of jurisdiction requires no ascertainment of facts and, if upheld, would end the matter, the objection met the threshold.
What is the appropriate remedy where a suit is filed in a court without jurisdiction
Transfer to the proper forum rather than dismissal, in the interest of justice.
Counsel for the plaintiff submitted that if the court found no jurisdiction, the suit should be transferred rather than dismissed, citing Article 50 fair-hearing guarantees and Spinners & Spinners Limited. The court, adopting the concurrent jurisdiction principle in Spinners & Spinners, transferred the suit to the High Court (Commercial and Tax Division) instead of striking it out.
Legal principles established
#- Where a transaction involves both land and commercial elements, jurisdiction depends on the predominant purpose of the transaction (the Predominant Purpose Test).
- Cognate superior courts have concurrent jurisdiction to transfer a suit filed before one to the more appropriate counterpart court.
Court orders
#- 1.That the notice of Preliminary Objection dated 12th February 2026 is merited.
- 2.This suit is hereby transferred to High Court (Commercial and Tax Division) for hearing and determination and the Deputy Registrar of this Court is directed to facilitate the same.
- 3.Costs to abide the determination of the main suit.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#Continuation of the suit before the Environment and Land Court
The dispute is predominantly a commercial claim for recovery of monies due under a loan facility, falling outside the ELC's jurisdiction.
Costs
Costs to abide the determination of the main suit.
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.
That the notice of Preliminary Objection dated 12th February 2026 is merited.
This suit is hereby transferred to High Court (Commercial and Tax Division) for hearing and determination and the Deputy Registrar of this Court is directed to facilitate the same.
Costs to abide the determination of the main suit.
I find that the issues raised are commercial in nature for this reason, find that the suit falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the High Court.
In a transaction involving both a sale of land and other services or goods, jurisdiction lies at the ELC if the transaction is predominantly for land, but the High Court has jurisdiction if the transaction is predominantly for the provision of goods, construction, or works.
Issues in the judgment
#The case number of the present suit is not stated in the extract; only a companion reference '941' appears in the appearance list.
The judgment refers to the plaintiff's claim as possibly res judicata on jurisdiction (per plaintiff's submissions) but does not resolve that issue expressly before proceeding on jurisdiction.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Equity Bank Limited & another v Kinjunje Gardens Limited & 7 others (Environment and Land Case 941 & 947 of 2016 (Consolidated)) [2026] KEELC 3386 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in full in the extract (reference to companion suit '941' appears). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3386/eng@2026-06-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.