[2018] KEELC 418 (KLR)
The court found that the dispute was fundamentally about the distribution of matrimonial property, including both land and motor vehicles, and not a pure land dispute. The Environment and Land Court's jurisdiction is limited to land matters and does not extend to the distribution of matrimonial property or non-land...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 418 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Emily Chelagat Koech; Defendant: Joel Kiprono Mutai
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 240 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit
- Outcome
- Application dismissed and suit struck out with costs to the defendant.
- Judges
- MAO Odeny
- Legal Topics
- Matrimonial Property, Jurisdiction, Transfer of Suits, Distribution of Property
- 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
Emily Chelagat Koech
Plaintiff
Joel Kiprono Mutai
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine disputes relating to matrimonial property distribution.
- 2 Whether the court can transfer the suit to the High Court for hearing and determination.
- 3 Whether the inclusion of motor vehicles in the dispute affects the court's jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the dispute was fundamentally about the distribution of matrimonial property, including both land and motor vehicles, and not a pure land dispute. The Environment and Land Court's jurisdiction is limited to land matters and does not extend to the distribution of matrimonial property or non-land assets. Since the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, it could not entertain or transfer the suit to the High Court. The proper course for the plaintiff was to file a fresh suit in the appropriate court or pursue the pending related cases. Consequently, the application for transfer was dismissed and the suit struck out with costs to the defendant.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed and suit struck out with costs to the defendant.
Orders
- The application dated 8th February 2018 is dismissed.
- The entire suit is struck out.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT ELDORET
LAND CASE NO. 240 OF 2017
EMILY CHELAGAT KOECH...........................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
JOEL KIPRONO MUTAI............................................DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
This ruling is in respect of an application dated 8th February 2018 brought by way of notice of motion by the plaintiff/applicant for orders that the court do transfer this suit from the Environment and Land Court to the High court for hearing and determination.
Counsel for the plaintiff applicant submitted that the suit relates and touches on properties that were acquired during the existence of the marriage between the plaintiff and the defendant and therefore the High Court is competent and has jurisdiction to determine the matter and that the Environment and Land Court does not have full jurisdiction to as the said properties are matrimonial properties.
The defendant’s Counsel opposed the application on the grounds that the court lacks the jurisdiction either to entertain or transfer the suit as the plaintiff admits in her pleadings that the matter is about matrimonial property and not a land dispute. That the properties listed include several motor vehicles which cannot fall under the definition of land.
Counsel further submitted that there are other similar matters touching on the same subject matter in two other courts namely, HCCC No. 10 of 2013 (OS) and Eldoret CMCC Divorce Cause No. 16 of 2012 which was formally commenced as Eldoret HCC Divorce Cause No. 2 of 2012 which are still pending.
Analysis and determination
From the pleadings and the submissions of Counsel, it is clear that this is a matrimonial dispute. The court could have had jurisdiction if it was touching on land only and not distribution of the properties. The plaintiff has listed many motor vehicles which the court has no jurisdiction to handle. This court cannot distribute matrimonial property where parties to a marriage have a dispute. If it was an issue of ownership of a parcel of land then the court would have dealt with it.
The plaintiff was well aware that when filing the suit she must have known where and which court to file the same. This is very important in order not to face the issue of lack of territorial, pecuniary and subject matter jurisdiction. The court has discretionary powers in transfer of suits but this is not a case which the court would exercise such powers to transfer. The plaintiff is better off filing a fresh suit in the relevant court if she so wishes of pursue the pending cases that she has filed in the other courts in respect of the same subject matter.
With the above I decline to grant the orders and dismiss the application and strike out the entire suit with costs to the defendant.
Dated and delivered at Eldoret this 11th day of December, 2018.
M. A ODENY
JUDGE