Kamore (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of the Late James Kamore Njomo) & another v Njomo & 14 others & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E115 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4386 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Kajiado Environment and Land Court dismissed preliminary objections against an estate's land claim, ruling that key questions need a full hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Locus standi of the Plaintiff as administrator
The question of the Plaintiff's locus standi cannot be resolved at the preliminary stage as it requires interrogation of evidence, including the claim of trust arising from the Kamore v Kamore apportionment and the non-participation of the co-administrator
The Defendants argued the Plaintiff lacked locus because the suit property is registered in the name of Phoebe Wangui Gakui, not the Estate, and because a co-administrator was not joined or consulted. The Plaintiff countered that beneficial interests were apportioned by the Court of Appeal and that non-joinder is not fatal under Order 1 Rule 9. The court held that determining locus standi would require interrogating evidence, impossible at an interlocutory stage, and that the co-administrator issue requires hearing the Plaintiff first.
Jurisdiction - boundary dispute for the Land Registrar or encroachment/trespass claim for the court
Whether the dispute falls within the Land Registrar's mandate or concerns trespass, encroachment and interference with proprietary rights is a question that cannot be determined without evidence; the objections were premature
The Defendants invoked Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act and George Kamau Macharia to argue that the boundary dispute belongs to the Land Registrar. The Plaintiff relied on the Land Registrar's own survey report of 28th August 2023 and framed the claim as one of trespass and encroachment through unlawful subdivision. The court found the characterization of the dispute itself depends on evidence and the pleadings, and could not be resolved on a preliminary objection.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection consists of a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the opposite party are correct; it cannot be raised where any fact has to be ascertained or where the court is called upon to exercise judicial discretion
- Where the issues raised in a preliminary objection require ascertainment of facts or evidence, the matter should proceed to full hearing on the merits
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objections dated 5th October 2025, 6th October 2025 and 13th October 2025 and the application dated 11th August 2025 are dismissed and the suit set to be determined on its merits
- 2.The hearing of the application dated 7th September 2025 is dispensed with; the status quo in respect of the title and occupation of Ngong/Ngong/3821 and resultant subdivisions to remain in place pending hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.The matter is to be expeditiously set down for hearing
- 4.Costs shall abide the outcome of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes touching on title to land (Articles 162(2)(b) and 165(5) framework; not expressly cited in judgment)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamore (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of the Late James Kamore Njomo) & another v Njomo & 14 others & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E115 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4386 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (ELC suit, Kajiado). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4386/eng@2026-07-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.