The court held that the predominant issue in the petition was the nature and use of the land in question, specifically whether the lanes in issue formed part of public land and whether their current use was appropriate. The alleged infringement of the Petitioner's rights and fundamental freedoms was ancillary to the main issue of land use. Applying the predominant purpose test as settled by the Court of Appeal, the court found that the dispute fell squarely within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court as provided under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. Consequently, the High Court's jurisdiction was expressly ousted by Article 165(5)(b) of the Constitution, and the petition could not be entertained by the High Court.