Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutELC No. E037 of 2025· [2026] KEELC 3593 (KLR)

Julo Tsuma Julo & another (Suing on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of 48 others of Mwadzeni Clan, Samburu, Kwale County) v Choyo & 9 others (Environment and Land Case E037 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3593 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 May 2026
5,804 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~23 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a land dispute filed too early, because the plot was still under adjudication and no required official consent had been obtained.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling arose suo moto following a letter dated 10th February 2026 from the Senior Land Adjudication and Settlement Assistant, Kinango, and proceedings of 12th December 2025 and 24th February 2026, concerning a dispute over Plot No. 1203 in Chengoni Adjudication Section, demarcated to four persons (Julo Tsuma Julo, Daniel Gwaru Ngao, Lewa Choyo Gude and Kombo Choyo Gude). The Land Adjudication officer explained that the parcel lies within an active adjudication section, that two competing claims persist and have not been resolved through the statutory mechanisms, and that the parties had not obtained the consent required under Section 30(1) and (2) of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap. 284, before instituting the suit. The Court framed three issues: its jurisdiction, entitlement to reliefs, and costs. Relying on the Constitution (Articles 162(2)(b), 165(3)), Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, and authorities including Owners of M.V. Lillians, Samuel Kamau Macharia, Mohamed Ahmed Khalid, Bhaijee v Nondi, Speaker of National Assembly v Karume and Tobias Achola Osindi, the Court held that jurisdiction over land in an active adjudication section is reserved to the statutory adjudication bodies until the adjudication register becomes final, that the Section 30(1) consent is a condition precedent, and that the doctrine of exhaustion applies. The suit was filed prematurely and without consent; the Court therefore lacked jurisdiction over the suit and all reliefs sought. Balancing this with Article 159(2)(d), the Court struck out the suit without prejudice to re-institution once the statutory conditions precedent are satisfied, and ordered each party to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the ELC over land in an active adjudication section

Holding

The Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain ELC No. E037 of 2025 because the suit was instituted before completion of adjudication and without the consent of the Director of Land Adjudication required under Section 30(1) of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap. 284.

Reasoning

Jurisdiction flows from the Constitution and statute and cannot be assumed. Section 30(1) of Cap. 284 bars institution of civil proceedings concerning land in an adjudication section until the adjudication register is final, except with written consent. The letter from the Senior Land Adjudication and Settlement Assistant and the DLASO's oral address established that Plot No. 1203 remains under active adjudication, the dispute has not passed through the statutory committees and Arbitration Board, and no consent was obtained. Precedents on exhaustion and on strict adherence to statutory procedure support striking out the suit, without prejudice to re-institution once conditions precedent are met.

p. 24
02

Entitlement to reliefs sought

Holding

Having found no jurisdiction, the Court could not grant any of the reliefs sought; the suit was struck out.

Reasoning

Because the finding on jurisdiction is fatal to the suit, all reliefs fall with it. The Court nonetheless balanced the legal correctness of dismissal with the parties' genuine dispute and Article 159(2)(d) obligations, endorsing the DLASO's proposal that the parties first pursue the statutory adjudication mechanisms and obtain the Section 30(1) consent before re-instating proceedings.

p. 26
03

Costs

Holding

Each party to bear its own costs.

Reasoning

Although under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act costs follow the event, the Court considered the prevailing circumstances and facts and found it just, fair and reasonable that each party bear its own costs.

p. 27

Legal principles established

#
  • No suit concerning an interest in land in an adjudication section may be instituted or entertained without the written consent of the adjudication officer until the adjudication register is final; proceedings instituted in contravention of Section 30(1) must be dismissed or struck out.
  • Where a statute provides a specific and complete dispute-resolution mechanism, that mechanism must first be exhausted before a court's jurisdiction is invoked.
  • Consent under Section 30(1) is a condition precedent and must be obtained before filing the suit (Bhaijee v Nondi).
  • Once a court determines it has no jurisdiction, it must stop and take no further step.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.THAT ELC No. E037 of 2025 be and is hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction, it having been filed in contravention of the provision Section 30(1) of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap. 284, and without the requisite consent of the Director of Land Adjudication
  2. 2.THAT the striking out is without prejudice to the parties' right to re-institute proceedings upon satisfying the conditions precedent under the said Act
  3. 3.THAT each party to bear its own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (establishment of the Environment and Land Court); jurisdictional bar considered under Section 30(1) and (2) of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap. 284

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Julo Tsuma Julo & another (Suing on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of 48 others of Mwadzeni Clan, Samburu, Kwale County) v Choyo & 9 others (Environment and Land Case E037 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3593 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC No. E037 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3593/eng@2026-05-06

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.