Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedLand Case E125 of 2025

Pecat Investments Ltd v Media Masters International Ltd & another

Environment and Land Court
24 September 2026
1,000 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed it can hear disputes over land used as security for rent debts, dismissing an attempt to move the case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The defendants raised a preliminary objection dated 27th January 2026 seeking dismissal of the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado lacked jurisdiction, contending that the dispute - recovery of outstanding rent arrears and enforcement of a Deed of Guarantee and Indemnity executed on 6th December 2024 - was predominantly commercial and belonged to the High Court, citing Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited v Njuguna. The plaintiff countered that the reliefs sought arose from sale, rent and transfer of properties, squarely within the ELC's jurisdiction. Omange J framed the sole issue as whether the preliminary objection was merited, restating that a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law apparent from the pleadings and that jurisdiction must be determined at the earliest opportunity, invoking the classic 'Lilian S' dictum. Applying the predominant purpose test from Suzanne Achieng Butler v Redhill Heights Investments, the court examined the plaint: the cause of action arose from a deed of guarantee and indemnity over two Kajiado parcels (Kajiado/Kaputiei North/Isinya Block 1/694 and 672) offered as security for rent arrears, and the reliefs sought declarations of breach, compelled execution of transfer and sale documents, and in default, execution by the Deputy Registrar. Although the parties' relationship originated in a commercial transaction, the dispute substantially concerned rights, interests, disposition and title to land. The court held the dispute fell within Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, dismissed the preliminary objection as devoid of merit, and ordered that costs abide the outcome of the suit.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.whether the Preliminary objection dated 27th January 2026 is merited

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ELC has jurisdiction over a dispute founded on a deed of guarantee and indemnity arising from rent arrears secured by land

Holding

The objection was dismissed; although the relationship originated commercially, the dispute substantially concerns title to and disposition of land, falling within ELC jurisdiction.

Reasoning

Applying the predominant purpose test, the court examined the plaint: the cause of action arises from a deed of guarantee and indemnity executed over two Kajiado parcels offered as security for rent arrears. The reliefs sought - declarations of breach, compelled execution of transfer and sale documents over the parcels - concern rights, interests and disposition of land. Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the ELC Act therefore confer jurisdiction on the ELC.

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection must be raised on a pure point of law discernible from the face of the pleadings
  • Where a transaction involves land and other elements, jurisdiction turns on the predominant purpose of the transaction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 27th January 2026 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs shall abide outcome of the suit

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act

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.

Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no powers to make one more step.
p. 2Primacy of jurisdiction
the Court finds that while the parties’ relationship originated from a commercial transaction, the dispute substantially concerns rights, interests, disposition or title to land.
Predominant purpose test applied
The Preliminary Objection dated 27th January 2026 is therefore devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Costs shall abide outcome of the suit.
p. 3Final orders

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Pecat Investments Ltd v Media Masters International Ltd & another", Case Analysis (2026). Land Case E125 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5823/eng@2026-09-24

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