Abdi & another v Obila & 2 others; Arvic Tours Travels Limited (Ainushamshi Hospitality Group Limited) (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case E003 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 18621 (KLR) (15 December 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 18621 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MALINDI ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE E003 OF 2023 EK MAKORI, J DECEMBER 15, 2025 BETWEEN NIMO AHMED ABDI .......................................................................... 1ST PLAINTIFF ABDIRAHMAN MUHUMED ABDI ................................................. 2ND PLAINTIFF AND ISAAC JUMA OBILA ....................................................................... 1ST DEFENDANT KILIFI HOTELS LIMITED ............................................................. 2ND DEFENDANT OMAR GUMA IBRAHIM .............................................................. 3RD DEFENDANT AND ARVIC TOURS TRAVELS LIMITED (AINUSHAMSHI HOSPITALITY GROUP LIMITED) .................................................................................. INTERESTED PARTY RULING 1. This matter was set for hearing today the 15th December, 2025 and the 16th December, 2025. 2. A Preliminary Objection and a Notice of Motion both dated 10/12/2025 has been taken by the 3rd Defendants. There is a jurisdicial issue raised. That this matter belongs to the High Court. It is commercial in nature and that there is also the aspect of res judicata and sub judice. Mr. Kiplagat argues the same must take Centre stage. 3. Mr. Bwire opposes. He says there have been attempts not to proceed in the matter at whatever cents. This issues have never been raised in the past. The matter can proceed. Then those issues can be sub s….in the main judgment. All has ve witnesses who have one again travelled. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18621/eng@2025-12-15 1
page 1 of 2
4. Mr. Makworo says he has just come on record. He needs time to le his clients statement. He will be ready to proceed tomorrow. The issues raised can be canvassed in the main judgment. His client was never in the Mombasa case so sub-judice and re judicata will not apply. 5. The history of the matter is such directions have been provided several times. Last time we were here Mr. Kiplagat was said to be sick. He took two days hearing for today. The issue of jurisdiction had not been raised. The Preliminary Objection and the Notice of Motion were led late. I reckon them during the weekends. Filed at the court in the hours before the hearing itself. It should have been led earlier to avoid expenses given that it had been directed to issue a physical hearing. 6. Notheless given that the application raises jurisdiction question and that jurisdiction is everything and that it must be raised the earlierst, I will direct the Preliminary Objection and the Notice of Motion be heard rst and it is directed that: i. The application and the Preliminary Objection to be served forthwith. The Respondents have 14 days hereof to respond. That thereafter parties have seven days apart to do written submissions. ii. That the previous costs and costs for today incurred by parties to be paid by 3rd Defendant before the next hearing date upon prove of expenditure. iii. Ruling on 21/1/2026 DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED ELECTRONICALLY IN MALINDI ON DECEMBER 15, 2025. E. K. MAKORI JUDGE In the presence of: Mr. Makworo for the Plainti Mr. Bwire for 1st Defendant Mr. Kiplagat for 3rd Defendant Happy: Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18621/eng@2025-12-15 2
page 2 of 2