https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3593

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KWALE** **ELCLC E037 OF 2025** **JULO TSUMA JULO** **GWARU NGOWA *(Suing on their own*** ***Behalf and on behalf of 48 others*** ***Of Mwadzeni Clan, Samburu, Kwale County)* ............... PLAINTIFFS** **-VERSUS-** **LEWA CHOYO & 9 OTHERS ………..………………. DEFENDANTS** **RULING** 1. **Introduction** 2. The Honourable Court was tasked to make a determination suo moto pursuant to the letter dated 10th February 2026 and consequent proceedings of 12th December 2025 and 24th February 2026. 3. **The Letter dated 10th February 2026 from the Senior Land Adjudication and Settlement Assistant Kinango** 4. The letter reads as follows:-  **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **MINISTRY OF LANDS AND PHYSICAL PLANNING** **DEMARCATION OFFICER** **CHENGONI ADJUDICATION SECTION** **KINANGO** **EMAIL:evansmanyuru@gmail.com** **DATE: 10/02/2026** **RE: KINANGO/KWALE/CHENGONI/10/02/2026** **SCLASO** **KINANGO SUB COUNTY** **P.O BOX 38-80405 KINANGO** **RE: LAND DISPUTE AT DAMBALE CHENGONI PLOT NO: 1203** **The above mentioned parcel of land in Dambale Village, Chengoni adjudication section was demarcated to the persons here under** 1. **JULO TSUMA JULO OFID NO:24127826** 2. **DANIEL GWARU NGAO OF ID NO: ………………….** 3. **LEWA CHOYO GUDE OF ID NO:4611237** 4. **KOMBO CHOYO GUDE OF ID NO:11772173** **The said land has been having an outstanding dispute.** **The matter is currently being prosecuted at the Environment and Lands Court At Kwale ELCLC NO.E037 OF 2025** **Kindly consent them to have their matter be resolved at the court for the sake of peace and development.** **Attached please find a copy of PDF sketch map of the area.** **Thank you** **Yours** **EVANS MANYURU** **SENIORLAND ADJUDICATION** **SETTLEMENT ASSISTANT** **P.O. Box 38** **KINANGO** 1. The Court proceedings of 12th December 2025 was as follows: ***Mr. Evans Manyuru Present in court - I am the District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer from Kinango. I received a call from the Environment and Land Court Kwale from one of the staff members to appear in court with regard to the Notice to Show Cause (NTSC) via the ELC No. E037/2025. Upon receiving the call I appear in court and by 8:31 am. On 12th December, 2026 I was already here and advised to wait to be called. I am aware about the case. Its about the Land Ref No. KINANGO/KWALE CHENGONI LAND ADJUDICATION SECTION/PLOT NO. 1203 demarcated to the four (4) persons namely;*** 1. ***JULO TSUMA JULO*** 2. ***DANIEL GWARU NGAO*** 3. ***LEWA CHOYO GUDE*** 4. ***KOMBO CHOYO GUDE*** ***The land has been having an outstanding land dispute; it borders SILALANYI Land adjudication section where the adjudication process has not commenced. There are two claims and they cannot agree among themselves, he met the Chief and agreed that they be given are number, he have noted the matter is already in court yet they have no consent to institute it in court as required under the provision of Section 30 (1) and (2) of Land Adjudication Act Cap. 284. Hence, I propose they first of all obtain the consent and then we can engage. They have been fighting and hence need peace. That is all.*** ***Court –*** 1. ***The DLASO has appeared and provided court with a clear explanation of the situation on the ground and the way to resolve the matter. He has produced a copy of a letter dated 10th February, 2026 addressed to the SCLASO over the suit subject matter.*** 2. ***Court is fully satisfied. I therefore direct:-*** 3. ***THAT there be a mention of this matter on 29th April, 2026 for directions*** 4. ***THAT all the parties to be furnished with a copy of the letter dated 10th February, 2026 by DLASO to SCLASO”*** 5. Subsequently, on 24th February, 2026 the matter was mentioned and the following directions were given: ***Based on the ongoing proceedings I direct as follows;*** 1. ***THAT the matter to be taken out of today’s call over through an adjournment.*** 2. ***THAT the Respondent and Plaintiff be granted 14 days leave to file and serve documents.*** 3. ***THAT the Honourable Court shall provide comprehensive directions on how the matter proceeds based on the advice given by DLSO vide their letter of 10th February 2026 and the issue of the provision of Section 30 (1) of the Land Adjudication Act Cap. 284.*** 4. **Analysis and Determination** 5. I have carefully assessed and considered all the filed pleadings herein, the evidence adduced from the said pleadings, the letter dated 10th February, 2026, the court record, the relevant provisions of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and statues. 6. This Honourable Court will still examine the facts [as they currently are] of the case and in order to arrive at an informed, just, equitable and reasonable decision, the Honourable Court have three ( 3 ) issues for its determination. These are: - 7. ***Whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit, given the provisions of Section 30 (1) and (2) of the Land Adjudication Act, Caps 284, and the fact that the suit land — Kinango/Kwale/Chengoni Land Adjudication Section/Plot No. 1203 — is situated within an active adjudication section.*** 8. ***Whether the parties are entailed to the reliefs sought.*** 9. ***Who bears the costs of the suit?*** ***ISSUE No. a). Whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit, given the provisions of Section 30 (1) and (2) of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap. 284, and the fact that the suit land — Kinango/Kwale/Chengoni Land Adjudication Section/Plot No. 1203 — is situated within an active adjudication section.*** 1. Under this Sub – title, the Honourable Court shall be critically examining the issue of whether this Court has jurisdiction to make a determination of this matter or not. 2. Jurisdiction is the first and most critical issue that a court or tribunal must have before it is competent to embark on any task before it. Without jurisdiction, a Court cannot move. In the celebrated case of ***“Owners of the Motor Vehicle M.V. Lillians – Versus - Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited (1989) KLR1”***. At page 14 line 29-43 Nyarangi JA (as he then was) had this to say:- ***“By jurisdiction is meant the authority which a court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. The limits of this authority are imposed by statute, charter or commission under which the court is constituted and may be extended or restricted by the like mean. If no restriction or limit is imposed, the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited. A limitation may be either as to the kind and nature of the action and matters of which the particular court has cognizance of or as to the area over which the jurisdiction shall extend; or it may partake of both these characteristics. If the jurisdiction of an inferior court or tribunal including an arbitrator depends on the existence of a particular state of facts, the court or tribunal must inquire into the existence of the facts in order to decide whether it has jurisdiction but except where the court or tribunal has been given power to determine conclusively whether the fact exists where a court takes it upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not possess, its decision a merit to nothing. Jurisdiction must be acquired before judgment. It is for that reason that a question of jurisdiction once raised by a party or by a court on its own motion must be decided forthwith on the evidence before the court. It is immaterial whether the evidence is scanty or limited. Facts constitute the evidence before the court…The moment a court determines that it has no jurisdiction it has to down its tools and proceed no further”*** 1. Jurisdiction of a court or tribunal is conferred upon it by the Constitution, statute or both. The jurisdiction of this court flows from the provision of Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution which provides for the establishment of the Environment and Land Court to hear and determine disputes relating to the environment and the use and occupation of, and title to, land. The Supreme Court in the case of:- ***“Macharia & another – Versus - Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 others [2012] KESC 8 (KLR)”*** expressed itself as follows: ***“A Court’s jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a Court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law. We agree with counsel for the first and second Respondents in his submission that the issue as to whether a Court of law has jurisdiction to entertain a matter before it, is not one of mere procedural technicality; it goes to the very heart of the matter, for without jurisdiction, the Court cannot entertain any proceedings. This Court dealt with the question of jurisdiction extensively in, In the Matter of the Interim Independent Electoral Commission (Applicant), Constitutional Application Number 2 of 2011. Where the Constitution exhaustively provides for the jurisdiction of a Court of law, the Court must operate within the constitutional limits. It cannot expand its jurisdiction through judicial craft or innovation. Nor can Parliament confer jurisdiction upon a Court of law beyond the scope defined by the Constitution. Where the Constitution confers power upon Parliament to set the jurisdiction of a Court of law or tribunal, the legislature would be within its authority to prescribe the jurisdiction of such a court or tribunal by statute law.”*** 1. The provision of Section 13 of the Environment & Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011 on the other hand provides that the Court shall have power to hear and determine disputes― **a. relating to environmental planning and protection, climate issues, land use planning, title, tenure, boundaries, rates, rents, valuations, mining, minerals and other natural resources;** **b. relating to compulsory acquisition of land;** **c. relating to land administration and management;** **d. relating to public, private and community land and contracts, choses in action or other instruments granting any enforceable interests in land; and** **e. any other dispute relating to environment and land.** 1. The Court of Appeal case of ***“Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited -Versus - Patrick Kangethe Njuguna & 5 others (2017) eKLR”*** went into great length in addressing the issue of jurisdiction of the ELC court when it comes to matters such as the one herein. Though the Plaintiff’s decry that the same is not a blanket decision of the jurisdiction of this court, the same is binding to this court by virtue of the stare decisis doctrine. The court in that case found that: ***a. Land use involves the application of land, air above it, or ground below it for its adapted purpose. Charging land (securing a loan with land as collateral) is not considered land use*** ***b. A charge is an interest in land securing payment of money or fulfilment of conditions. It creates a limited relationship where the chargee (lender) has rights over the land for security, not for using the land.*** ***c. A charge is a disposition (legal arrangement) in land, not land use. Dispositions create relationships but do not alter environmental conditions of the land, unlike land use.*** ***d. If a disposition were land use, absentee landlords with a charge would not face adverse possession claims, which contradicts legal principles.*** ***e. The ELC does not have jurisdiction over charges as land use under Article 162 of the Constitution. The main issue in the case was accounting for amounts due, not the validity of the charge itself.*** ***f. The ELC's jurisdiction over contracts relates to land use, not financial instruments like mortgages or charges, which fall under the civil jurisdiction of the High Court.*** ***g. The High Court has jurisdiction over accounting disputes per Article 165 (3) of the Constitution, which provides unlimited original jurisdiction in civil matters.*** 1. Despite of the above legal parameters, the Court emphasises that jurisdiction is not absolute and must at all times be exercised within the confines of applicable law. Where Parliament has enacted a specific statutory framework for resolving disputes of a certain class, that framework must first be exhausted before the court's jurisdiction can be properly invoked. 2. The provision of Section 30(1) of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap. 284, provides that no suit shall be instituted in any court in respect of any land to which a programme order applies unless the adjudication process has been completed and a final adjudication register has been published. Further, the provision of Section 30 (2) provides that any such suit instituted in contravention of subsection (1) shall be dismissed. 3. Legally speaking, the Land Adjudication Act, Cap. 284 was assented on 26th June, 1968 and its commencement date was 28th June, 1968. The Act is the law that governs provides a framework for the ascertainment and recording of land rights and interests in Trust land. It outlines the procedures for identifying and registering land ownership, particularly within adjudication areas, to ensure clarity and security of land tenure. The main purpose of the Act is to formally recognize and document land ownership within designated areas; to resolve disputes related to land ownership and boundaries; to create a clear and legally recognized record of land rights for individuals and groups within the adjudicated section. All these processes concerning land under the adjudication regime provides for lodging of complaints where more than one person lays a claim to a specific parcel of land. 4. The preamble of the Act holds that it was to deal with all matters of the land adjudication and the persons who are ordinarily residents of the delineated adjudication section. From the very onset, the Honourable Court strongly and proudly so holds that this is one of those few legislation on land matters in Kenya that has such a well elaborated and established internal dispute resolution mechanisms. From the provisions of Sections 1 to 30 of the Act, it provides for the declaration of the adjudication are by the Minister for Lands (Sections 3 & 5); the appointment of the Land Adjudication Committee comprising of elders appointed from within the area (Section 6); composition of the adjudication register comprising of person who are ordinarily residents of the area based on birth, tribe, clan or customary linage ,the demarcation and allocation; the appointment of the Arbitration Board (Section 7); the claims and attendance (Section 13); the process of demarcation, allocation of interests and rights to land and preparation of the records and register (Sections 14 to 25); raising of objections to adjudication register (Section 26); Finalisation of the adjudication register (Section 27) and action by the Chief Land Registrar – issuance of title deeds to the registered members (Section 28) and then Appels (Section 29). Based on the above, therefore, the registered person in the adjudication register and the area list, have the rights and interests go through the process of adjudication. These includes ascertainment and registration of the said rights and interests. The process culminates in the issuance of the title deed. 5. It bears such elaborate mechanisms for resolving land dispute through well established ***“Quasi – Judicial***” legal structures. These include, the Adjudication Committees, Arbitration Board. The disputes are in form of objections raised by an aggrieved party. The provision of Section 19 (2) and (3) of the Act states as follows:- **“(2) If there are two or more conflicting claims to an interest in land and the recording officer is unable to resolve the conflict, he shall submit the dispute to the committee to decide. (3) The recording officer shall rectify the forms in accordance with any decision which the adjudication officer, the committee or the board may make in accordance with this Act.”** 1. A party dissatisfied with the decision of the Adjudication Committee may prefer the dispute to the Arbitration Board for determination under the provision of Section 21 (3) of the Act which provides that: - **“Any person named in or affected by a decision of the committee who considers the decision to be incorrect may, within fourteen days after the decision, complain to the executive officer of the committee, saying in what respect he considers the decision to be incorrect.”** 1. The Appeal is lodged before the Minister under the provision of Section 29 of the Act. It provides that the decision by the Minister is final. The provision of Section 29 of the Act provides that: - **“Any person who is aggrieved by the determination of an objection under section 26 of this Act may, within sixty days after the date of the determination, appeal against the determination to the Minister by— delivering to the Minister an appeal in writing specifying the grounds of appeal; and sending a copy of the appeal to the Director of Land Adjudication and the Minister shall determine the appeal and make such order thereon as he thinks just and the order shall be final”.** 1. Therefore, it is expected that the disputes should end there. However, arising from the operation of the Act, a party may only move High Court under two grounds. Firstly, whereupon there has been a violation or threat or breach of the fair administration action in the process of the hearing the Appeal by the Minister. For instance, an aggrieved party may seek for prerogative writs in form of Judicial Review in form of “**Certiorari**”, “**Mandamous**” or “**Prohibition**” under the common law as provided for under Sections 8 and 9 of the Law Reforms Act, Cap. 26 and Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and in the recent development of jurisprudence as provided for in the omnibus provision of the Articles 22, 23 and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and “**The Fair Administrative Act No. 4 of 2015”.** 2. Secondly, the other way to seek legal remedy by an aggrieved party emanating from the land adjudication process as stipulated from the Act, is through the provision of Section 30 of the Act. It provides that: - **“(1) Except with the consent in writing of the adjudication officer, no person shall institute, and no court shall entertain, any civil proceedings concerning an interest in land in an adjudication section until the adjudication register for that adjudication section has become final in all respects under section 29(3) of this Act. [Rev. 2012] Land Adjudication CAP. 284 L5 - 17 [Issue 1]. (Emphasis is mine).** **(2) Where any such proceedings were begun before the publication of the notice under section 5 of this Act, they shall be discontinued, unless the adjudication officer, having regard to the stage which the proceedings have reached, otherwise directs.** **(3)………………………………………………..** 1. To support the Court on this legal position, I seek refuge from the case of: “***Mohamed Ahamed Khalid (Chairman) and 10 others – Versus - Director of Land Adjudication & 2 others (2013) eKLR*** where Angote J held: - ***“The law that was applicable for the ascertainment of land rights and interests over trust land is the Land Adjudication Act Cap 284. The said Act has an elaborate mechanism of appeal in the event an individual is aggrieved by the decisions of the land adjudication and settlement officer, the land adjudication committee, the land arbitration board and the Minister’s appeal committee. Indeed, before the Director signs the certificates of finality, the Land Adjudication Act provides that the adjudication register must be published which shall be followed with the hearing, determination and implementation of objections in respect to the Adjudication register. The Petitioners have not shown by way of evidence that the adjudication register in respect of the suit property was ever published and that they raised objections in respect to the matter in which the adjudication process was carried out. Considering that the Land Adjudication Act, Cap. 284 has an elaborate procedure on how complaints arising from the planning, demarcation and surveying of Trust Land are supposed to be dealt with, it is my view that this court cannot substitute the established bodies which are supposed to deal with these complaints. The Petitioners can only move this court for declaratory orders and judicial review orders, or by way of an ordinary suit, once they have exhausted the mechanisms that the law has put in place.”*** 1. Similarly, the Court of Appeal in the case of:- “***Speaker of National Assembly -Versus- Karume (1992) KLR 21”*** held that: - ***“Where there is a clear procedure for redress of any particular grievance prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure should be strictly followed. Accordingly, the special procedure provided by any law must be strictly be adhered to since there are good reasons for such special procedures.”*** 1. Further, in the case of:- “***International Centre of Policy and Conflict & 5 Others – Versus - The Attorney General & 4 Others [2013] eKLR”*** as was cited in the case of “***Diana Kethi Kilonzo & Another – Versus - IEBC & 10 Others [2013] e KLR”*** it was stated: - ***“An important tenet of the concept of the rule of law is that this court before exercising its jurisdiction under Article 165 of the Constitution in general must exercise restraint. It must first give an opportunity to the relevant constitutional bodies or state of organs to deal with the dispute under the relevant provision of the parent statute. If the court were to act in haste, it would be presuming bad faith or inability by that body to act. …Where there exists sufficient and adequate mechanism to deal with a specific issue or dispute by other designated constitutional organs, the jurisdiction of the court should not be invoked until such mechanisms have been exhausted”*** 1. On further regard to the provision of Section 30 ( 1 ) of the Act, I have noted the interpretation of the Court Appeal in respect of when the consent should be sought in the case of:- ***“Bhaijee & another – Versus - Nondi & another (Civil Appeal 139 of 2019) [2022] KECA 119 (KLR) (18 February 2022) (Judgment).”*** It is to the effect that the consent is condition precedent and must predate the filing of the intended suit. 2. The other limb of the objection raised is based on the principle of exhaustion. It is contended that the jurisdiction of this court has been wrongly and prematurely invoked in relation to issues for which specific and exclusive procedures have been prescribed. The court is aware of the numerous court decisions where it has been held that where there are existing mechanisms provided under statute for resolution of disputes then this must be exhausted. See the Supreme Court of Kenya holding in the case of:- “***Bernard Murage -Versus - Fine Serve Africa Limited & 3 others [2015] eKLR.*** 3. The superior courts have in various decisions, including the Court of Appeal in the case of:- “***Watuku Mutsiemi Watuku & Another – Versus - Republic & 5 Others”*** and this court in tne case of:- “***Onesmus Daniel Masumbuko & Others – Versus - Augustino Baya Thoto [2019] eKLR***”, held that the Minister’s decision is final and not amenable for appeal to this court, unless when moved through invoking the court’s judicial review jurisdiction. 4. With the above in mind, I wish to refer to the Supreme Court of Kenya dictum in the case of: “***Benard Murage (Supra)”***where the apex court explained the importance of the doctrine of exhaustion of remedies in the following words: “***Where there exists an alternative remedy through statutory law, then it is desirable that such statutory remedy should be pursued first.”*** 1. The doctrine was aptly captured by the Court of Appeal in the case of “***Republic – Versus - National Environment Management Authority Ex - Parte Sound Equipment Limited”****,* where the Court of Appeal observed: - ***“... Where there was an alternative remedy and especially where Parliament had provided a statutory appeal procedure, it is only in exceptional circumstances that an order for judicial review would be granted and that in determining whether an exception should be made and judicial review granted, it is necessary for the court to look carefully at the suitability of the statutory appeal in the context of the particular case and ask itself what, in the context of the statutory powers, was the real issue to be determined and whether the statutory appeal procedure was suitable to determine it ...”*** 1. Further in the case of “***Speaker of the National Assembly – Versus - James Njenga Karume [1992] eKLR”****,* where the Court of Appeal held that: - ***“… In our view, there is considerable merit in the submission that where there is a clear procedure for the redress of any particular grievance prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure should be strictly followed. We observed without expressing a concluded view that order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules cannot oust clear constitutional and statutory provisions....”*** 1. When tasked with determining issues on jurisdiction similar to the ones in the present suit, Okongo J. commenting on the role of the Court vis-a-vis that of the adjudicating bodies under the Act, in the case of:- “***Tobias Achola Osindi & 13 others – Versus - Cyprian Otieno Ogalo & 6 Others [2013] eKLR****,* held as follows:- ***“The whole process leading up to the registration of land as aforesaid is undertaken by the Adjudication Officer together with other officers appointed under the Act for that purpose. It follows from the foregoing that once an area has been declared an adjudication area under the Act, the ascertainment and determination of rights and interests in land within the area is reserved by the law for the officers and quasi-judicial bodies set up under the Act…The Act has given full power and authority to the Land Adjudication Officer to ascertain and determine interests in land in an adjudication area prior to the registration of such interest. As I have mentioned above, the process is elaborate. …….. The court has no jurisdiction to ascertain and determine interests in land in an adjudication area. In my view, the role of the court is supposed to be supervisory only of the adjudication process. The court can come in to ensure that the process is being carried out in accordance with the law. The court can also interpret and determine any point or issue of law that may arise in the course of the adjudication process. The court cannot, however, usurp the functions and powers of the Land Adjudication Officer or other bodies set up under the Act to assist in the process of ascertainment of the said rights and interests in the land...”*** ***ISSUE No. b). Whether the parties are entailed to the reliefs sought.*** 1. Under this sub – heading, the Honourable Court will be examining whether the parties herein are entitled to the reliefs sought based on the legal principles spelt out above. The evidence placed before this Court, specifically the letter dated 10th February, 2026 from the Senior Land Adjudication and Settlement Assistant, Kinango, and the oral address by the District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer (DLASO) on 12th December 2025, is unequivocal and uncontested on the following material facts: 2. Plot No. 1203 in Chengoni Adjudication Section is presently under an active adjudication process governed by the Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284. 3. The adjudication process has not been completed. Specifically, the parcel abuts the Silalanyi Land Adjudication Section where adjudication proceedings have not even commenced. 4. The demarcation of Plot No. 1203 in the names of the four registered parties — Julo Tsuma Julo, Daniel Gwaru Ngao, Lewa Choyo Gude, and Kombo Choyo Gude — remains the subject of an ongoing internal dispute that has not been resolved through the prescribed statutory mechanisms under the Land Adjudication Act. 5. The institution of the present suit was done without the requisite consent of the Director of Land Adjudication as required under Section 30(1) of Cap 284. 6. The Court takes cognisance of the Supreme Court of Kenya's guidance in ***Speaker of the National Assembly & Another – Versus - Karume [Supra)”*** that where a statute provides a specific forum and procedure for the resolution of a dispute, the court must give effect to the legislative intent. The Land Adjudication Act establishes a complete and self-contained dispute resolution mechanism culminating in the adjudication register. This mechanism is not merely procedural but is substantive in nature — it determines the very foundation upon which title and ownership rights are established. 7. The Court further notes the Court of Appeal's reasoning in ***Munyu Maina – Versus - Hiram Gathiha Maina [2013] eKLR*** to the effect that the adjudication process is intended to settle competing claims to land in a final and definitive manner, and that courts must be slow to interfere with that process before its conclusion. Any judicial intervention before the adjudication register is finalised risks creating parallel and conflicting determinations on title, which would be inimical to the purpose of the Act. 8. Accordingly, this Honourable Court finds and holds that at the time of filing of ELC No. E037 of 2025, this Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit by reason of Section 30(1) of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap. 284. The suit was prematurely instituted before the completion of the adjudication process and without the statutory consent of the Director of Land Adjudication. This Court cannot exercise jurisdiction it does not possess. As was stated by the Supreme Court in the case of:- “***Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another – Versus - Kenya Commercial Bank Limited (Supra)”***, a court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the Constitution or legislation and has no power to arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that so conferred. 9. Having found that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this matter at this stage, the Court must now consider the appropriate consequential orders. The Court is alive to the fact that the parties before it are landowners within an active adjudication section who have a genuine and pressing dispute. Dismissing the suit outright, while legally correct, must be balanced with the Court's overriding obligation under Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities, and to promote alternative forms of dispute resolution. 10. The Court further notes that Section 26 of the Land Adjudication Act provides for an objection procedure before the adjudication officer, and that Sections 27 and 29 provide for an appeals mechanism to the Minister and thereafter to the Environment and Land Court upon publication of the final adjudication register. These mechanisms are not mere formalities — they are the constitutionally sanctioned pathway through which the parties' rights can be lawfully determined with full finality. 11. The DLASO, in his address to this Court on 12th December 2025, has helpfully proposed that the parties should first of all obtain consent to institute a civil proceedings before this Honourable Court under the provision of Section 30(1) of the Act and that the dispute resolution process be engaged at the adjudication level. It fallows, therefore, that this Court fully endorses that approach and commends the DLASO's constructive engagement with these proceedings. Thus, in view of the fore going, I strongly discern that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain this matter including all the reliefs sought by the parties herein. Hence, the suit must be struck out. ***ISSUE No. c). Who will bear the costs of the objection*** 1. It is now well established that the issue of costs is at the discretion of the Court. Costs mean the award that is granted to a party at the conclusion of the legal action and the proceedings of any litigation. The provision of Section 27 (1 ) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 holds that costs follow the event. By the event it means the result or outcome of the legal action. 2. In the instant, taking all the prevailing circumstances and the facts of the case, it is just, fair and reasonable that each party bear their own costs. 3. **Conclusion & Disposition** 4. From the foregoing, I will not belabour much into the reasons why the suit is prematurely before court. The issue has been ably outlined above. Thus, I proceed to grant the following specific orders: - 5. **THAT ELC No. E037 of 2025 be and is hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction, it having been filed in contravention of the provision Section 30(1) of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap. 284, and without the requisite consent of the Director of Land Adjudication.** 6. **THAT the striking out is without prejudice to the parties' right to re-institute proceedings upon satisfying the conditions precedent under the said Act.** 7. **THAT each party to bear its own costs.** **IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY.** **RULING DELIVERED THROUGH THE MICRO – SOFT TEAMS VIRTUAL MEANS, SIGNED AND DATED AT KWALE THIS ….6TH ……… DAY OF ……….. MAY……….2026** **………………………………** **HON. MR. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI,** **ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT** **AT** **KWALE** **Ruling delivered in the presence of: -** 1. Mr. Daniel Disii, the Court Assistant. 2. M/s. Nduku for the Plaintiff. 3. Mr. Waitheka for the Defendant.