Pecat Investments Ltd v Media Masters International Ltd & another

5. It is settled that a preliminary objection should be raised on a pure point of law which can be discerned from the face of the pleadings. The Defendants’ objection is premised on the contention that the dispute before the Court is purely commercial in nature, arising from a tenancy relationship and a deed of guarantee and indemnity which falls within the jurisdiction of the High Court and not the Environment and Land Court. 6. As has often been held, the question of jurisdiction is central to the legitimacy of any orders that a court makes hence must be determined at the earliest opportunity once raised. I reiterate the often cited words in the famous case of “Owners of Motor Vessel “Lilian S” – Versus - Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited (1989) IKLR in which the court stated:“ Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no powers to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction there would be no basis for a continuation of the proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law downs its tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion it is without jurisdiction…………where a court takes it upon itself to exercise jurisdiction which it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing. Jurisdiction must be acquired before Judgement is given”. 7. The Environment and Land Court is a creation of Article 162 (b) of the Constitution which donates to parliament the power to establish courts with the status of the High Court to hear and determine disputes relating to the Environment and the use and occupation of and title, to land. 8. The courts continue to grapple with the Jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court vis a vis the High Court. Joel Ngugi J ( as he then was) in the case of Suzanne Achieng Butler & 4 others v Redhill Heights Investments Limited & another [2016] eKLR weighed in on the use of the predominant purpose test thus “When faced with a controversy whether a particular case is a dispute about land (which should be litigated at the ELC) or not, the Courts utilize the Pre-dominant Purpose Test: In a transaction involving both a sale of land and other services or goods, jurisdiction lies at the ELC if the transaction is predominantly for land, but the High Court has jurisdiction if the transaction is predominantly for the provision of goods, construction, or works. 9. 24. The Court must rst determine whether the pre-dominant purpose of the transaction is the sale of land or construction. Whether the High Court or the ELC has jurisdiction hinges on the predominant purpose of the transaction, that is, whether the contract primarily concerns the sale of land or, in this case, the construction of a townhouse. 10. In considering this test, the Plaint provides useful guidance. The cause of action arises from a deed of guarantee and indemnity executed in respect of Kajiado/Kaputiei North/Isinya Block 1/694 and Kajiado/Kaputiei North/Isinya Block 1/672 which were oered as security for the settlement of outstanding rent. The Plainti alleges that upon the Defendants’ default, it became entitled to realize the security by selling the properties. It therefore seeks declarations regarding the Defendants’ breach of the deed of indemnity, orders compelling execution of transfer and sale of documents relating to the two parcels of land and in default, an order authorizing the Deputy Registrar of this Court to execute the requisite documents to eect the sale and transfer. 11. From this cursory reading, the Court nds that while the parties’ relationship originated from a commercial transaction, the dispute substantially concerns rights, interests, disposition or title to land. 12. Accordingly, I am satised that the dispute falls within the jurisdiction conferred upon this Court by Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5823/eng@2026-09-24 2

page 2 of 3

13. The Preliminary Objection dated 27th January 2026 is therefore devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. Costs shall abide outcome of the suit. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KAJIADO THIS 24TH SEPTEMBER 2026. JUDY OMANGE JUDGE. In The Presence Of: Ms. Odhiambo for Mr. Waruiru for Plainti. Mr. Oginga for Mr. Murunga for Defendant. Peter – Court Assistant. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5823/eng@2026-09-24 3

page 3 of 3