Drylands Resilience Action formerly Waso Trust Land Project v Christensen Fund & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3568 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a petition seeking donor grants, because the contract required disputes to be heard in California, not Kenya.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over the petition
The court lacks jurisdiction: the dispute is subject to an exclusive California jurisdiction clause and raises no matter within Articles 40, 42, 69 and 70; the dispute falls outside Article 162(2)(b).
The Grant Agreement dated 10.07.2019 contained an exclusive foreign jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction on California state or US Federal Courts in San Francisco. The petitioner was bound by that covenant and cannot mount the dispute before this court. Further, the court's constitutional jurisdiction is confined to Articles 40, 42, 69 and 70, and the petition contains no particulars of breach of Articles 40 and 42, which were merely 'sneaked in' at prayer one.
Whether the petition discloses a reasonable cause of action
The petition is vague and omnnibus and seeks to compel the grantor to enter a fresh grant agreement; it discloses no reasonable cause of action.
The last grant agreement lapsed on 31.12.2020 and no further agreement exists. The petition seeks an order compelling the 1st respondent to re-admit the petitioner to the programme and extend philanthropic grants, effectively asking the court to create a contract for the petitioner, which the law does not permit.
Whether the petition constitutes an abuse of the due process of the court
The petition amounts to an abuse of the court's process.
Applying the Supreme Court's guidance in Rutongot Farm Ltd v Kenya Forest Service and Satya Bharma Gandhi v Director of Public Prosecution, the court found the petition mischievous, aimed at coercing the 1st respondent to re-admit the petitioner and extend philanthropic grants, and therefore an abuse of process warranting striking out.
Legal principles established
#- A court's jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or legislation and cannot be expanded through judicial craft or innovation.
- Parties are bound by the terms of their contract and courts should not rewrite contracts.
- Abuse of court process bears no fixed meaning but turns on motives behind a party's actions and attempts to manoeuvre the court's jurisdiction.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion Application dated the 28.04.2026 be and is hereby allowed.
- 2.The Preliminary Objection dated the 20.04.2026 be and is hereby allowed.
- 3.The petition dated the 11.03.2026 be and is hereby struck out.
- 4.Costs of the Application and the Preliminary objection be and are hereby awarded to the respondents in the petition.
- 5.Costs of the petition be and are hereby awarded to the Respondents.
- 6.The costs in terms of clause [iv] and [v] above shall be agreed upon and in default be taxed in the conventional manner.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution, 2010 (Environment and Land Court)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Drylands Resilience Action formerly Waso Trust Land Project v Christensen Fund & 2 others (Environment and Land Petition E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3568 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Petition dated 11th March, 2026 (case number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3568/eng@2026-06-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.