[2024] KEHC 3972 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 3972 (KLR)

The High Court determined that it no longer has jurisdiction to entertain or revive cases relating to ownership, occupation, and title to land following the enactment of the 2010 Constitution, specifically under Articles 162(2)(b) and 165(5)(b). As the defendants' application seeks to reopen a concluded land...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 3972 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: George Makahia Kirai; Defendant: Meshack Onger; Defendant: Kennedy Omondi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 168 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Judgment and for Substitution of Plaintiff
Outcome
Application declined for want of jurisdiction; file transferred to Environment and Land Court.
Judges
RE Aburili
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of High Court, Transfer of Land Disputes, Environment and Land Court, Ownership of Land, Title to Land
Source Language
en
Land and Property Jurisdiction of High Court Transfer of Land Disputes Environment and Land Court Ownership of Land Title to Land

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

George Makahia Kirai

Plaintiff

Meshack Onger

Defendant

Kennedy Omondi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Judgment and for Substitution of Plaintiff

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an application relating to ownership, occupation, and title to land after the promulgation of the 2010 Constitution.
  2. 2 Whether the application to set aside judgment and substitute the plaintiff can be entertained by the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court determined that it no longer has jurisdiction to entertain or revive cases relating to ownership, occupation, and title to land following the enactment of the 2010 Constitution, specifically under Articles 162(2)(b) and 165(5)(b). As the defendants' application seeks to reopen a concluded land dispute, the only lawful course is to transfer the matter to the Environment and Land Court, which now has exclusive jurisdiction over such disputes. The court therefore declined to certify the application as urgent and ordered the transfer of the file to the appropriate court, closing the matter from the High Court's docket.

Court Disposition

Application declined for want of jurisdiction; file transferred to Environment and Land Court.

Orders

  • The application dated 9th April 2024 is not certified as urgent.
  • The file is transferred to the Environment and Land Court, Kisumu for further consideration.