https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4112

Kasirimo v Simplepay Capital Ltd (Environment and Land Case E043 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4112 (KLR) (2 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4112 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado Environment and Land Case E043 of 2026 MD Mwangi, J July 2, 2026 Between Elijah Kakure Kasirimo Plaintiff and Simplepay Capital Limited Defendant (In respect of the Defendant’s preliminary objection dated 7th April 2026 contesting the court’s jurisdiction) Ruling Introduction 1.The matter coming up for determination before this Honourable Court is the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 7th April 2026, raised by the Defendant, Simplepay Capital Limited. The preliminary objection targets the Plaintiff/Applicant's Application dated 6th March 2026, and the main suit which the Defendant asserts should be struck out with costs. 2.The gravamen of the Defendant's preliminary objection is that this Honourable Court lacks the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit. The objection is anchored on the following specific grounds:i.That the dispute stems from a sale agreement relating to a parcel of land and is purely contractual in nature.ii.That the matter primarily concerns the interpretation, performance, and enforcement of contractual obligations, which falls outside the jurisdiction of this Court as contemplated under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution.iii.That the pecuniary value of the subject matter does not exceed Kenya Shillings Twenty Million (Kshs. 20,000,000/=).iv.That pursuant to Section 26(4) of the Environment and Land Court Act, alongside Sections 7 and 9 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, jurisdiction is properly vested in the Magistrates' Court to handle matters of a civil nature involving title to land where the subject matter falls within the prescribed pecuniary limit of Kshs. 20,000,000/= and below. 3.Consequently, the Defendant contends that the dispute falls squarely within the pecuniary and subject-matter jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court. The Defendant therefore submits that the current proceedings have been improperly instituted before this Court, rendering them incompetent and an abuse of the court process. 4.The preliminary objection was canvassed by way of written submissions, the submissions of which have been duly considered in the writing of this ruling. Analysis and Determination 5.The issue that arises for determination is whether this has the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the instant suit. 6.The Plaintiff asserts a fraudulent deprivation of his property, Kajiado/Dalalekutuk/29780, arising from a loan transaction of Kshs. 7,500,000/=. Conversely, the Defendant maintains the transaction was a pure sale of land for the same amount, arguing that the pecuniary value places the dispute outside this court's original jurisdiction. It is an elementary principle of law that a court must first ascertain its jurisdictional mandate before venturing into the substantive merits of any claim. 7.As emphatically stated by Nyarangi JA in the foundational case of Owners of the Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited [1989] KLR 1:“Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a Court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A Court of law downs its tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction." 8.The crux of the matter demands a proper construction of the constitutional and statutory framework establishing the Environment and Land Court. This Court is not a subordinate court whose powers are strictly capped by financial limits. Rather, it is a superior court of record, explicitly clothed with the original and unlimited jurisdiction to hear and determine all disputes relating to the environment and the use, occupation, and title to land. The financial value of the property in dispute, acknowledged at Kenya Shillings Seven Million, Five Hundred Thousand (Kshs. 7,500,000/=), does not operate to strip this Court of its constitutional mandate to adjudicate land matters. 9.This position is unequivocally anchored in Article 162(2)(b) and (3) of the Constitution of Kenya, read together with Section 13(1) of the Environment and Land Court Act, which categorically states:“The Court shall have original and appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine all disputes in accordance with Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and with the provisions of this Act or any other law applicable in Kenya relating to environment and land.” 10.A fundamental tenet of legal interpretation is that the jurisdiction of a superior court cannot be ousted by implication; it can only be ousted by express, clear, and unambiguous statutory provisions. A meticulous reading of the Magistrates' Courts Act and the Environment and Land Court Act reveals no such exclusionary provision. There is absolutely no law that divests this Court of its original jurisdiction over land matters premised on the pecuniary value of the subject matter. The mere existence of a lower court with the capacity to hear a dispute does not automatically extinguish the superior court's inherent and statutory jurisdiction over the exact same subject matter. 11.This strict rule against the implied ouster of jurisdiction is supported by the Supreme Court of Kenya in Samuel Kamau Macharia & another v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 others [2012] eKLR, which established that:“A Court's jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a Court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law.” 12.Therefore, the true legal character of the jurisdiction conferred upon the subordinate courts must be properly understood. Section 9 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, alongside the corresponding provisions in the Environment and Land Court Act, do not create an exclusive jurisdiction for the Magistrates' Court that locks out this Court. Instead, these provisions confer concurrent jurisdiction. The legislative intent behind expanding the Magistrates' Courts' pecuniary limits in land matters is one of administrative delegation and decentralization. It is designed to encourage the filing of lower-value disputes in the subordinate courts to decongest the superior courts, rather than to erect an absolute jurisdictional bar against the Environment and Land Court. 13.This framework of delegated authority is embodied in Section 9(a) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, which outlines the civil jurisdiction of magistrates subject to pecuniary limits, and Section 26(3) and (4) of the Environment and Land Court Act, which provides:“Subject to Article 169(2) of the Constitution, the Magistrate appointed under sub-section (3) shall have jurisdiction and power to handle... matters of civil nature involving occupation, title to land, provided that the value of the subject matter does not exceed the pecuniary jurisdiction as set out in the Magistrates' Courts Act." 14.Flowing from this reasoning, the Defendant’s Preliminary Objection, which seeks to strike out the suit on the premise that this Court entirely lacks jurisdiction, is fundamentally flawed and legally unmerited. Instituting the suit in this Court does not render it incompetent. However, while the jurisdiction resides here, practical judicial administration, the principle of subsidiarity, and the deliberate legislative design encouraging the delegation of such claims mandate that matters within the financial purview of the subordinate courts should ordinarily be determined there. 15.Consequently, rather than terminating the proceedings by striking out the suit, the legally sound, just, and procedurally appropriate approach is to invoke the court's administrative powers to transfer the matter to the appropriate forum. 16.This administrative power to delegate and transfer is granted by Section 18(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, which explicitly empowers this Court with the discretion to manage such concurrent jurisdiction:“On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desire to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court may at any stage— (a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same..." 17.The upshot is that the Preliminary Objection dated 7th April 2026 is unmerited, as this Court is not divested of jurisdiction. The Objection is hereby dismissed. However, noting that the subject matter value falls within the Kshs. 20,000,000/= threshold of the Magistrates' Court, this Court, on its own motion, orders that the instant suit and the pending application dated 6th March 2026 be transferred forthwith to the Kajiado Chief Magistrates' Court for hearing and determination. In the meantime, the interim orders granted on 6th March 2026 shall remain in force pending the hearing and determination of the application dated 6th March 2026. 18.The court makes no orders as to the costs of the preliminary objection.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAJIADO VIRTUALLY THIS 2ND DAY OF JULY 2026.M.D. MWANGIJUDGEIn the virtual presence of:Mr. Tera for the for the DefendantN/A by the PlaintiffCourt Assistant: Alex