https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4730
The court held that the claim for discharge of charge over the specified property was commercial in nature and did not amount to a dispute concerning an interest in land within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction and could not proceed with the matter.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELC 4730 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff/applicant: DANIEL KIMIRI MWAURA; 1st Defendant/respondent: MINAXIBEN ASHOK PANCHAL; 2nd Defendant/respondent: VIKRAM ASHOK PANCHAL
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 543 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application in the Environment and Land Court / Ruling on Notice of Motion and Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- Application and suit struck out for want of jurisdiction
- Judges
- ["CG Mbogo"]
- Legal Topics
- Discharge of Charge, Transfer of Suit, Want of Jurisdiction, Commercial Dispute, Environment and Land Court Jurisdiction
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
DANIEL KIMIRI MWAURA
Plaintiff/applicant
MINAXIBEN ASHOK PANCHAL
1st Defendant/respondent
VIKRAM ASHOK PANCHAL
2nd Defendant/respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application in the Environment and Land Court / Ruling on Notice of Motion and Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Environment and Land Court had jurisdiction to determine the application relating to discharge of charge over the titled property.
- 2 Whether the dispute concerned an interest in land or was merely a commercial matter.
- 3 What orders should issue if the court lacked jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the claim for discharge of charge over the specified property was commercial in nature and did not amount to a dispute concerning an interest in land within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court. The court therefore lacked jurisdiction and could not proceed with the matter.
Court Disposition
Application and suit struck out for want of jurisdiction
Orders
- Suit struck out for want of jurisdiction.
- Parties at liberty, by consent, to have the suit transferred to the High Court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI** **ELC CIVIL CASE NO. 543 OF 2025** **DANIEL KIMIRI MWAURA……………..………………..PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **MINAXIBEN ASHOK PANCHAL………...……1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT** **VIKRAM ASHOK PANCHAL……………………2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT** **RULING** 1. The plaintiff/ applicant filed the notice of motion dated 30th October 2025 expressed to be brought under **Section 23** of the **Registration of Titles Act, Article 40** and **159** of the **Constitution and Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 3B and 63(e)** of the **Civil Procedure Act** seeking the following orders:- 2. ***Spent.*** 3. ***That this honourable court be pleased to order the*** ***defendants/respondents herein to sign the discharge of charge and any other such documents drawn for the title deed number*** ***I.R 170677 BEING LAND REFERENCE NUMBER 4148/1694 (ORIGINAL NUMBER 4148/1660/35) in the name of the Plaintiff/Applicant to be released by the NCBA Bank Kenya PLC to the Plaintiff/Applicant.*** 4. ***That in default of the Defendant/Respondents aligning the discharge of charge or any other documents thereof to enable title deed number I.R 170677 BEING LAND REFERENCE NUMBER 4148/1694 (ORIGINAL NUMBER 4148/1660/35) to be released to the Plaintiff/Applicant, this Honourable court do order the Deputy Registrar of this Honourable court to sign the said documents to enable the Plaintiff/Applicant get his title deed from NCBA Bank Kenya PLC.*** 5. ***That the cost of this application be given to the Plaintiff/Applicant.*** 6. The application was supported by the plaintiff’s supporting affidavit sworn on even date. The defendants/respondents did not file their response to the application. Instead, they filed a notice of preliminary objection dated 12th November, 2025 challenging the jurisdiction of this court to hear and determine this matter. 7. When I retired to write a ruling, and having perused the pleadings herein, I note that the claims made by the plaintiff/applicant concerns the discharge of property known as land reference no. 4148/1694 (original no. 4148/1660/35). The dispute between the parties is commercial in nature and it does not concern any interest in land as per the court of appeal decision in **Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited v Njuguna & 5 others [2017] KECA 79 (KLR)**. 8. For this reason, this court is unable to proceed further, and in that case, the parties are at liberty to by consent have this suit transferred to the high court. Alternatively, the plaintiff/applicant may withdraw this suit and file the same in the appropriate court. Otherwise, this suit is hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction. It is so ordered. **DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED VIRTUALLY ON** **THIS 23RD DAY OF JULY, 2026.** **HON. MBOGO C.G.** **JUDGE** **23/07/2026.** ***In the presence of:*** *Mr. Benson Agunga - Court assistant* *Mr. Wekesa holding brief for Mr. Ariyo for the Defendant* *Mrs. Owino for the Plaintiff*