https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/scc/2026/147

Kegondi v Mukoro (Commercial Case E077 of 2026) [2026] SCC 147 (KLR) (10 July 2026) (Judgment) Neutral citation: [2026] SCC 147 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Small Claims Court at Malaba Commercial Case E077 of 2026 AZ Ogange, RM July 10, 2026 Between Dennis Odera Kegondi Claimant and Kennedy Mukoro Respondent Judgment 1.Vide a statement of claim dated 12th May 2026 and filed in court on 12th May 2026 the Claimant prays for judgment in his favor for the sum of Kshs. 321,475.00/= together with costs of the suit and interest at court rates. 2.The circumstances leading to the filing of this case are that the Claimant and the Respondent entered into an agreement for lease of a portion of all that property known as Bokoli/Kituni/1209. That it was a term of the agreement that the Claimant would undertake sugarcane farming and utilize the land for three harvests of the said cane at an agreed consideration of Kshs. 25,000/=. That the Claimant completed only one harvest before the Respondent allegedly breached the agreement by denying him access to the land and fencing it off. The Claimant seeks recovery of the money lost for the two harvests. 3.The claim is opposed vide a Statement of Response dated 15th June 2026 and filed on 16th June 2026 denying the Claim in its entirety. 4.This matter came up for hearing on 19th June 2026 when the Claimant, his witness and the Respondent testified. At the close of the Respondent’s case, parties were granted leave to file submissions and the matter reserved for judgment on 10th July 2026. Both Counsel have filed submissions which I have read and considered. 5.The core issue that arises from the pleadings and submissions of counsel is whether this court has jurisdiction to entertain the claim. The Claimant’s claim is founded on a lease agreement under which the Respondent permitted him to cultivate half an acre of land upon payment of consideration of Kshs. 25,000/= of which Kshs. 15,000/= was paid as a deposit. The Claimant avers that after completing one harvest, the Respondent sold the land to a third party, who subsequently denied him access, thereby depriving him of the remaining two harvests contemplated under the agreement. He consequently seeks compensation for the alleged loss of the unexpired portion of the lease. 6.Although the claim has been presented as one for monetary compensation, its foundation is the alleged wrongful deprivation of the Claimant’s right to occupy and utilize agricultural land under a lease agreement. To determine the Claimant’s entitlement to the relief sought, the court would necessarily be called upon to interrogate and determine the parties’ respective rights and obligations arising from the lease, whether the Claimant was lawfully entitled to remain in possession, whether he was in breach by failing to pay the balance of the consideration, the effect of the subsequent sale of the land to a third party, and whether the Claimant’s occupation exceeded the agreed half acre. These are issues touching on interests in, occupation of and use of land. 7.I am persuaded by the submissions of learned counsel for the Respondent that such a dispute falls within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Environment and Land Court Act. It is not one of the claims contemplated under Section 12 of the Small Claims Court Act. In fact, the Small Claims Court Act under Section 13(5) expressly excluded disputes relating to title and possession of land from the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Court. 8.It is therefore the finding of the court that this court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the claim which is hereby struck out with costs to the Respondent and which costs are assessed at Kshs. 15,000/=. JUDGMENT DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT MALABA SMALL CLAIMS COURT THIS 10TH DAY OF JULY 2026.A.Z. OGANGER.M/ADJUDICATORIn the Presence ofMs. Imali for the Claimant andMs. Wanyama for the RespondentCourt Assistant: Paul Otieno