Gitau v Muiruri & 8 others (Environment and Land Case E197 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4515 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed it can hear land disputes regardless of value, and blocked nine Ruiru plots from being sold while the case is decided.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELC vis-à-vis subordinate courts
The ELC is a superior court of co-equal status with the High Court, established under Article 162(2)(b); land disputes are reserved for it and its jurisdiction is not ousted by concurrent subordinate court jurisdiction
Article 165(5) restricts the High Court only; the ELC is not the High Court but a distinct superior court under Article 162(2)(b). Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act confers original and unlimited jurisdiction over title, use and occupation of land. Magistrates' Courts' concurrent jurisdiction over lower-value land disputes does not strip the ELC of jurisdiction; the two overlap but the ELC's jurisdiction is never ousted.
Whether the objection was a proper preliminary objection
No - determining the pecuniary value of land is a matter of fact requiring evidence, so the objection fails the Mukisa Biscuit test
A jurisdictional objection is in principle a recognised pure point of law, but this objection was premised partly on the pecuniary value of the claim, which requires valuation evidence and cannot be resolved from the pleadings. Under Mukisa Biscuit, an objection cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained; it was therefore misconceived and dismissed.
Prima facie case, irreparable harm and balance of convenience
The Plaintiff established a prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury, and the balance of convenience favours preservation of the land
The Plaintiff traced the deceased's root of title via Ballot No. 1947 and Share Certificate No. 1578; Green Cards and photographs corroborated trespass. The 6th Defendant's secret removal of a restriction and immediate transfer of subplot 27971 showed a real risk of piecemeal alienation. The application was unopposed, supporting adverse inferences. Land is unique and damages inadequate; only preservation of the status quo was sought.
Legal principles established
#- The ELC and the High Court are distinct superior courts; Article 165(5) has no bearing on the ELC's jurisdiction, and the concurrent jurisdiction of subordinate courts does not oust the ELC's original jurisdiction in land matters
- A preliminary objection on pecuniary value of land requires factual inquiry and is defective under the Mukisa Biscuit test
- A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law which can be determined without ascertaining facts or exercising discretion
- In interlocutory applications, the court should opt for the lower rather than the higher risk of injustice
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 6/08/2025 raised by the 5th Defendant/Respondent is dismissed with costs; this Court is properly and constitutionally seized of jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) and Sections 4 and 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
- 2.An order of restriction/inhibition to be registered against subplots RUIRU KIU BLOCK 2 (GITHUNGURI) 27967, 27968, 27969, 27970, 27972, 27973, 27974, 27975 and 27976 (excluding 27971, subject to further directions)
- 3.All parties, including the Defendants, their representatives, agents, assigns, servants and all persons claiming through or under them, restrained from selling, alienating, transferring, sub-dividing, charging, leasing or in any other manner dealing with the said subplots pending the hearing and final determination of the main suit
- 4.The Land Registrar, Ruiru, directed and notified of the terms of the order and restrained from registering or giving effect to any instrument or dealing in respect of the said subplots pending determination of the main suit
- 5.The Plaintiff to file and serve upon the Land Registrar, Ruiru, within fourteen (14) days, a certified copy of the Ruling with a formal application for registration of the order pursuant to Section 76 of the Land Registration Act
- 6.The Plaintiff is at liberty to apply by way of substantive application to join the alleged transferee of RUIRU KIU BLOCK 2 (GITHUNGURI) 27971 and/or seek appropriate relief in respect of that subplot; jurisdiction reserved
- 7.The main suit to proceed to hearing; parties directed to comply with Pre-trial Conference directions; Pre-trial Conference on 20/07/2026
- 8.Costs of the Application and the Preliminary Objection to be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Sections 4 and 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gitau v Muiruri & 8 others (Environment and Land Case E197 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 4515 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC NO. 197 OF 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4515/eng@2026-07-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.