[2016] KEHC 5358 (KLR)
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to occupation, ownership, or title to land, including appeals arising from interlocutory applications such as temporary injunctions in such disputes. The Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act vest exclusive jurisdiction in the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 5358 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Dig-Tech Images Limited; Respondent: Kenya Railways Staff Retirements & Benefits Scheme; Respondent: Mbukinya Success (K) Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal 159 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- The High Court found it lacked jurisdiction and directed the file be placed before the Environment and Land Court.
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Courts, Temporary Injunctions, Landlord Tenant Disputes
- 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
Dig-Tech Images Limited
Appellant
Kenya Railways Staff Retirements & Benefits Scheme
Respondent
Mbukinya Success (K) Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to occupation, ownership, or title to land.
- 2 Whether the appeal arising from a refusal to grant a temporary injunction in a land occupation dispute should be heard by the High Court or the Environment and Land Court.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to occupation, ownership, or title to land, including appeals arising from interlocutory applications such as temporary injunctions in such disputes. The Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act vest exclusive jurisdiction in the Environment and Land Court for such matters. Consequently, the appeal should be placed before the Environment and Land Court for further consideration.
Court Disposition
The High Court found it lacked jurisdiction and directed the file be placed before the Environment and Land Court.
Orders
- This file be placed before the Environment and Land Court for further consideration as the court may deem fit and just.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 159 OF 2015
DIG-TECH IMAGES LIMITED ………………………………..APPELLANT
VERSUS
KENYA RAILWAYS STAFF RETIREMENTS &
BENEFITS SCHEME ……………………………………….1ST RESPONDENT
MBUKINYA SUCCESS (K) LIMITED………………..…..2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
This appeal arises from the ruling and order of Honourable Mr Obulutsa, Senior Principal Magistrate delivered on 14th April 2015 in Chief Magistrate’s Court at Milimani CC 86 of 2015 wherein the trial magistrate declined to grant a temporary injunction restraining the respondents herein from occupying, constructing or interfering with the occupation of plot LR 209/6502 Muthurwa estate pending hearing and determination of the suit.
In the court below, the appellant herein claimed that it had leased the above named plot from the 1st respondent Kenya Railways Staff Retirements & Benefits Scheme through a Temporary Occupation License (TOL) at an agreed monthly rent of kshs 80,000 payable quarterly in advance and that upon execution of the said temporary occupation license it paid shs 518,000 inclusive of VAT and deposit for 3 months rent but that it was not granted vacant possession by the 1st respondent and that later the 2nd respondent Mbukinya Success (K) Ltd invaded the said premises claiming ownership. It is upon the above brief facts that the respondent sought legal intervention to get quiet enjoyment and occupation of the demised premises and upon a prayer for injunction being declined by the trial court, they filed this appeal.
From the above concise facts, no doubt the dispute herein between the parties involves or relates to occupation of land LR No. 20916502 (PART) MUTHURWA ESTATE, NAIROBI. The appellant claims the right to occupy it having leased it from the 1st respondent whereas the 2nd respondent claims the land was leased to it and that it is in lawful occupation thereof.
A dispute relating to occupation, ownership or title to land can only be heard and determined by Environment and Land Court as contemplated in Article 162(2) (b) of the Constitution. Further, Article 165(5) (b) of the Constitution expressly bars the High Court from hearing and determining any dispute reserved for the courts contemplated in Article 162(2) of the Constitution.
In this case, occupation claimed is by way of a lease or rental agreement called temporary occupation license (TOL). The jurisdiction to hear any such claims as stated earlier is in the preserve of the Environment and Land Court as established under Section 4 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011, with jurisdiction conferred by Section 13(1) thereof.
Furthermore, claims falling under the Landlord and Tenants (Shops, Hotels and Catering Establishments Act ( Cap 301) which would be heard by a Business Premises Rent Tribunal are appealable to the Environment and Land Court. That being the case, I find that this court is devoid of jurisdiction to hear and determine this appeal, which power is vested in the Environment and Land Court. Accordingly, I hereby direct that this file be placed before the Environment and Land Court for further consideration as the court may deem fit and just.
Orders accordingly.
R.E.ABURILI
JUDGE
19/4/2016