Syokimau Bright Homes Security Self Help Group (Suing Through its chairperson, Josephine Mueni Ndeto) v Kosgel & another (Environment and Land Case E017 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4899 (KLR)

The Respondents argued that the claim, founded on adverse occupation exceeding 12 years, is barred by Article 62(1) of the Constitution and Section 41 of the Limitation of Actions Act because the suit land is public land belonging to the 2nd Respondent. The court held that ownership is contested: the Applicants contend they have occupied the land peacefully since 2008 and challenge the root of the 2nd Respondent's title. Determining whether the land is public land would require resolving disputed facts, which is premature at a preliminary stage.

Relying on Owners of the Motor Vessel M.V Lillian S. v Caltex Oil (K) Ltd and Samuel Kamau Macharia v Kenya Commercial Bank, the court affirmed that jurisdiction flows from the Constitution and statute and cannot be assumed. Section 13(2) of the ELC Act confers power to hear and determine disputes relating to public, private and community land and any other dispute relating to environment and land, so the court's jurisdiction over this land dispute is constitutionally and statutorily grounded.

Citing Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd and Attorney General & Another v Andrew Mwaura Githinji, the court outlined that a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law, cannot be raised where facts must be ascertained or discretion exercised, and improper raising of such points increases costs and confuses issues. It found the objection was properly brought before the court, but because contested facts (ownership of the land) underpinned the objection, it could not succeed.