The Pumwani Riyadha Mosque Committee has emerged victorious in a lengthy legal fight after the Court of Appeal ruled in its favour in a land dispute with Gikomba Business Centre Ltd, bringing an end to a contested commercial lease agreement.

A three-judge bench made up of Justices Kathurima M’Inoti, Lydia Achode, and Weldon Korir found that the High Court did not have the authority to handle the matter and ordered the respondent’s suit struck out, effectively handing the mosque trustees a major win.

At the heart of the dispute was a lease dated September 9, 2015, for Land Reference Number 209/19680, in which Gikomba Business Centre Ltd was granted a 35-year lease to build and manage a business complex on land owned by the mosque trustees.

The mosque committee later terminated the lease, prompting Gikomba Business Centre to move to the High Court, accusing the committee of breaching the agreement and seeking specific performance of the lease terms.

On December 5, 2024, Justice Alfred Mabeya of the High Court rejected an application by the mosque committee to strike out the case. He ruled that the dispute was commercial in nature and fell within the jurisdiction of the High Court. The judge also said the mosque had lost the right to arbitration by taking part in the proceedings without seeking a stay.

However, the Court of Appeal took a different view. In a judgment delivered on July 11, 2025, the appellate judges said the matter should have been heard by the Environment and Land Court, not the High Court.

“The dispute herein is one which fell within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court pursuant to the provisions of Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and section 13(2)(a) of the Environment and Land Court Act,” the court ruled.

The bench noted that the conflict involved issues of land use, tenure, and occupation—areas that are clearly assigned to the Environment and Land Court by law.

“From the plaint, some of the alleged particulars of breach are interfering with the business operations of the respondent and violation of the terms of the lease agreement,” the judges noted. “The land was therefore being used in the terms contemplated by Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution.”

Lawyer Nelson Havi, representing the mosque trustees, praised the court's decision, saying it confirmed the need for courts to respect their legal boundaries. “Specialised courts exist for a purpose, and the High Court cannot expand its own jurisdiction through judicial craft,” he said during submissions.

The judges also looked into the question of arbitration. While the lease contained an arbitration clause, the mosque committee did not ask the court to refer the matter to arbitration at the time of entering appearance. This led Justice Mabeya to conclude they had given up that option.

The appellate court agreed with the High Court on this point, stating, “The failure to seek a stay of proceedings and for reference at the appropriate time, coupled with the defendants’ active participation in the current proceedings, means that the defendants have waived their right to insist on arbitration at this stage.”

On another claim by the mosque committee—that Gikomba Business Centre had failed to disclose important facts—the Court of Appeal found no evidence to support it.

“There is nothing to support the appellants’ assertion that there was material non-disclosure,” the judges said, noting that a previously referenced case had been withdrawn and another put on hold.

While the mosque trustees did not succeed on every argument, their core position that the High Court lacked the mandate to hear the case was upheld, resulting in the case being dismissed.

“This appeal succeeds... The ruling by Mabeya, J. is for setting aside,” the judges ruled. “The respondent’s plaint dated October 8, 2024, is struck out with costs to the appellants.”