Ngigi & another v Mhasibu Housing Company Ltd & 5 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E210 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4228 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Thika Environment and Land Court allowed landowners to keep building, ruling that boundary disputes belong in court, not planning committees.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain the suit as drawn and filed, having regard to the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies under the Physical and Land Use Planning Act, 2019
- 2.Whether the suit is sub judice the pending proceedings in MCELC/E069/2024
- 3.If the Preliminary Objections fail, whether the Plaintiffs have satisfied the threshold for the grant of conservatory orders as prayed
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction / exhaustion of statutory remedies under the Physical and Land Use Planning Act
The Preliminary Objections on exhaustion fail because the suit is fundamentally about land boundaries and negligent survey, which the Physical and Land Use Planning Act machinery does not cover
The court found that the plaintiff's case is not about development permission or building approvals but about negligent survey, erroneous beacons and disputed land boundaries. Section 3 of the Physical and Land Use Planning Act does not touch land boundaries. Jurisdiction vests in the court under Section 13(2)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act and Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution. Sending the plaintiffs to the statutory committees would be futile since those bodies lack tools to grant the relief sought.
Sub judice (Section 6, Civil Procedure Act)
The sub judice objection fails as a preliminary objection because it raises disputed questions of fact
Although the earlier suit MCELC/E069/2024 is between the same parties and concerns the same estate, determining whether the issues are directly and substantially the same requires ascertaining facts and probing evidence. Following Cyrus Mucebiu Irungu v Martha Wanjiru Irungu, the court held that a preliminary objection cannot be raised on disputed facts and therefore cannot be sustained at this stage.
Threshold for conservatory orders (Giella v Cassman Brown)
Plaintiffs satisfied the triple threshold: registered title, ongoing and demonstrable threat, and balance of convenience favouring status quo
The plaintiffs demonstrated a registered title under Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act constituting prima facie evidence of indefeasible ownership. The threat to their ongoing construction is neither speculative nor remote. Relying on Nguruman, the applicant need only show a fair and bona fide question as to the existence of the right. The balance of convenience favours preservation of the status quo pending determination of the main suit.
Legal principles established
#- A Court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution or other written law
- The doctrine of exhaustion cannot be extended to require a party to approach a statutory body that has no mandate to grant the relief sought
- A Preliminary Objection cannot be raised on disputed facts
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objections by the 1st and 2nd Defendants is not merited and is hereby dismissed with costs
- 2.The Preliminary Objections by the 3rd Defendant is not merited and is hereby dismissed with costs
- 3.The sub judice objection fails as it raises disputed questions of fact incapable of resolution by way of a Preliminary Objection
- 4.The Notice of Motion Application dated 25/02/2025 is hereby allowed and the conservatory orders sought in prayers 2 and 3 are hereby granted pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 5.Costs of both the Application and two Preliminary Objections is granted to the Plaintiff
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 13(2)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act Cap 8D read with Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Relief refused
#Prayer 4 - order compelling an official Survey of Mhasibu River Park Estate (approx. 120 acres) and filing of a comprehensive survey report
The court only granted conservatory orders in prayers 2 and 3; the survey order was not included in the disposal orders
Prayer 5 - alternative injunction restraining any construction activities on the entire Mhasibu River Park Estate
Not granted; only prayers 2 and 3 were granted
Prayer 6 - direction to the OCS Ruiru Police Station to enforce the orders
Not included in the disposal orders
Costs
Costs of both the Application and the two Preliminary Objections granted to the Plaintiffs
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.
The Notice of Motion Application dated 25/02/2025 is hereby allowed and the conservatory orders sought in prayers 2 and 3 are hereby granted pending the hearing and determination of the suit.
The Physical and Land Use Planning Act machinery invoked by the Defendants does not address land boundary disputes and the doctrine of exhaustion cannot be extended to require a party to approach a statutory body that has no mandate to grant the relief sought.
The sub judice objection equally fails as it raises disputed questions of fact incapable of resolution by way of a Preliminary Objection.
Costs of both the Application and two Preliminary Objections is granted to the Plaintifi.
Issues in the judgment
#The plaintiff's names are inconsistently rendered: Supporting Affidavit refers to 'Hannah Wanjiku Ngigi' as joint owner with her co-Plaintiff, while the related suit is cited as 'Hannah Wanjiku Ngigi and Teresia Wangui Ngigi' in some passages and 'Teresia Wanjiku Ngigi' is implied elsewhere
Ruling delivered on 14th May 2026 but the application was dated 25/02/2025 with submissions confirmed on 27/10/2025; the chronology is internally consistent but the year 2026 delivery date is notably distant
Case number of the present suit is never stated in the judgment, only the related suit MCELC/E069/2024 is identified by number
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngigi & another v Mhasibu Housing Company Ltd & 5 others (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E210 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4228 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Thika ELCC suit; related suit MCELC/E069/2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4228/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.