[2013] KEHC 2094 (KLR)
The court found that there was no evidence presented to show that the value of the land in question exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court. In light of the practice directions issued by the Chief Justice under section 24(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act, Magistrates' Courts retain...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 2094 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mackinnon Soita; Respondent: Joyce Aswani Simiyu; Respondent: Joseph Simiyu; Respondent: William Simiyu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 87 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit From Magistrate's Court to High Court
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Pecuniary Jurisdiction, Practice Directions, Environment and Land Court Jurisdiction
- 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
Mackinnon Soita
Applicant
Joyce Aswani Simiyu
Respondent
Joseph Simiyu
Respondent
William Simiyu
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit From Magistrate's Court to High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should transfer Bungoma CMCC No. 2 of 2013 from the Magistrate's Court to the High Court for hearing and determination.
- 2 Whether the Magistrate's Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the land matter in question given the pecuniary limits and practice directions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that there was no evidence presented to show that the value of the land in question exceeded the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court. In light of the practice directions issued by the Chief Justice under section 24(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act, Magistrates' Courts retain jurisdiction to hear and determine land and environment matters within their pecuniary limits. The court further relied on persuasive authority confirming the validity of these practice directions and held that the High Court should only exercise appellate jurisdiction in such matters. Therefore, there was no legal basis to transfer the suit from the Magistrate's Court to the High...
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application to transfer Bungoma CMCC No. 2 of 2013 to the High Court is disallowed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUNGOMA
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION CASE NO. 87 OF 2013
MACKINNON SOITA.....................APPLICANT
VERSUS
JOYCE ASWANI SIMIYU................ 1ST RESPONDENT
JOSEPH SIMIYU …....................2ND RESPONDENT
WILLIAM SIMIYU..................... 3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
The applicant seeks to transfer Bungoma CMCC No. 2 of 2013 to this court for it's hearing and determination. The application is opposed. The main reason for opposing this application is technically the subject matter sought to be stopped from happening has taken place to wit a burial.
I will not get into merits or otherwise of the suit in the lower court in terms of whether the subject matter has taken place. However I will decide this application on its merits and based on the practice directions issued by the Chief Justice as regards the determination of land cases.
The Chief Justice pursuant to the provisions of section 24(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act, issued practice directions for matters pending before the Environment & Land court issued on 9th November 2012 at paragraph 7 provides thus;
“Magistrates courts shall continue to hear and determine all cases relating to the environment and the use and occupation of land, (whether pending or new) in which the courts have the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction.”
In the instant application, it has not been indicated if the value of the land in question exceeds the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrate's court. Until the contrary information is given, I do not see the need to transfer the suit from the Magistrate's court to the High Court for trial and determination.
The validity or otherwise of the practice directions was brought up in the petition No. 72 of 2013 between Edward Mwaniki Gaturu & Ano. Vs. A.G & 3 others [2013] e KLR. Although this decision is persuasive on me, I do not see any reason to hold otherwise. Lenaola J. held that the Chief Justice acted within the provisions of Section 24 (2) of the Environment & Land Court Act. I therefore hold that the law as it has not taken jurisdiction from the subordinate courts to hear such cases. As put by Lenaola J. in the above case, this court has original and appellate jurisdiction in accordance with article 162 (2) of The Constitution. This court can only exercise appellate jurisdiction from the decisions of the courts below. These decisions would be unavailable unless the subordinate court hears matters. Consequently I disallow the application with no order on costs.
RULING DATED, SIGNED, READ and DELIVERED in open court this 25th day of September 2013.
A.OMOLLO
JUDGE.