[2019] KEELC 3978 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 3978 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide the value of the suit property, which is essential to determine whether the magistrate’s court has pecuniary jurisdiction. The court also observed that the subordinate court is competent to hear and determine the matter as presented. No sufficient justification...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 3978 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Abdi Rashid Mukwana; Plaintiff: Samuel Simiyu Wangatia; Plaintiff: Judith Wanjiru Wachira (Suing as Office Bearers of Muliro Market Kamukunji); Defendant: County Government of Trans-Nzoia; Defendant: G.H. Tanna & Sons Ltd
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application 5 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit From Magistrate's Court to Environment and Land Court
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Transfer of Suit, Jurisdiction of Courts, Pecuniary Jurisdiction, Res Judicata
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Transfer of Suit Jurisdiction of Courts Pecuniary Jurisdiction Res Judicata

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abdi Rashid Mukwana

Plaintiff

Samuel Simiyu Wangatia

Plaintiff

Judith Wanjiru Wachira (Suing as Office Bearers of Muliro Market Kamukunji)

Plaintiff

County Government of Trans-Nzoia

Defendant

G.H. Tanna & Sons Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit From Magistrate's Court to Environment and Land Court

  1. 1 Whether the Environment and Land Court should transfer Kitale Chief Magistrate Land Case No. 75 of 2018 to itself for hearing and disposal.
  2. 2 Whether the magistrate's court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit given the value and subject matter of the land.
  3. 3 Whether the issues raised are res judicata in light of Kitale ELC No. 64 of 2011.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide the value of the suit property, which is essential to determine whether the magistrate’s court has pecuniary jurisdiction. The court also observed that the subordinate court is competent to hear and determine the matter as presented. No sufficient justification was provided for transferring the suit to the Environment and Land Court. The court further noted that the issues of res judicata and jurisdiction should be addressed in the lower court. Consequently, the application to transfer the suit was dismissed, and the lower court was directed to proceed with the hearing and determination of the matter.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 27/2/2019 is dismissed with costs.
  • The lower court file shall be returned to the magistrate's court forthwith for hearing and determination.