[2025] KEELC 3773 (KLR)
The court found that, based on the nature of the plaintiff's claim—adverse possession—and guided by the Court of Appeal decision in Sugawara vs Kiruti, the Magistrates' Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine such claims. The Supreme Court's holding in Republic vs Karisa Chengo & 2 others further...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEELC 3773 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Evans Demesi Moi; Respondent: Mukangala Manyasi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E015 of 2025
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Transfer of Suit and Priority Hearing
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- GMA Ongondo
- Legal Topics
- Adverse Possession, Jurisdiction of Magistrates Court, Transfer of Suit, Priority Hearing
- Source Language
- english
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Evans Demesi Moi
Applicant
Mukangala Manyasi
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Transfer of Suit and Priority Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Magistrates' Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine a suit on adverse possession.
- 2 Whether the suit should be transferred to the Environment and Land Court for hearing and determination on a priority basis.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that, based on the nature of the plaintiff's claim—adverse possession—and guided by the Court of Appeal decision in Sugawara vs Kiruti, the Magistrates' Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine such claims. The Supreme Court's holding in Republic vs Karisa Chengo & 2 others further established that any decision made without jurisdiction is void. Therefore, the application to transfer the suit from the Magistrates' Court to the Environment and Land Court was merited and allowed, with directions for the matter to proceed for hearing on a priority basis.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Kapsabet Magistrates Court E&L Case No. E035 of 2021 is to be transferred to the Environment and Land Court for hearing and determination.
- The matter shall proceed for hearing on a priority basis, with the plaintiff to amend accordingly.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Moi v Manyasi (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E015 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3773 (KLR) (7 May 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 3773 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet
Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E015 of 2025
GMA Ongondo, J
May 7, 2025
Between
Evans Demesi Moi
Applicant
and
Mukangala Manyasi
Respondent
Ruling
1. By a Notice of Motion dated 28th January 2025, the applicant through Kipkosigei Choge and Company Advocates is seeking the orders infra;a.That the Honourable Court be pleased to order and call for Kapsabet Magistrates Court E&L Case No. E035 of 2021 for orders that the Honourable Court, be pleased to order and direct that case be transferred to that court for hearing and determination.b.That it is further proposed the court for an order that the matter be proceed for hearing as proposed and applied for by the Applicant and pursuant to Sections 1A,1B,3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act Chapter 21 Laws of Kenya alongside Section 13 of the Environment & Land Court Act, in view of the character of the dispute, it be ordered and directed that there be a hearing on priority basis with the Plaintiff amending accordingly.
2. In the supporting affidavit, it is averred, inter alia;a.That the Plaintiff had filed suit No. E035 of 2021 (O.S) before the Magistrate’s court in Kapsabet on adverse possession.b.That a Court of Appeal Decision has determined that a Magistrates’ Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a suit on adverse possession.
3. There is no response to the application.
4. Mr Choge learned counsel for the applicants has urged the court to allow the application.
5. I have considered the application in entirety.
6. By the character of the plaintiff’s claim and being guided by the Court of Appeal decision in Sugawara-vs-Kiruti (Sued in her capacity as the administratrix of the Estate of Mutarakwa Kiruti Lepaso alias Mutarakwa Kiruti Lepaso alias Mutaragwa Kiroti Leposo and in her own Capacity & 3 others (2024) eKLR on jurisdiction over adverse possession claims, the magistrate’s court lacks jurisdiction over the suit.
7. Moreover, in the case of Republic-vs-Karisa Chengo & 2 others (2017) eKLR, the Supreme Court of Kenya held that lack of jurisdiction renders a court’s decision void.
8. So, I find the application steadfast, cogent and merited.
9. In the result, the instant application, be and is hereby allowed in terms of orders 2 and 3 sought therein as stated in paragraph 1 (a) and (b) hereinabove.
10. It is so ordered.
DATED AND DELIVERED AT KAPSABET THIS 7TH DAY OF MAY 2025. G M A ONGONDOJUDGEPRESENT;Mr Choge learned counsel for the applicantMr Walter Kipkorir, court assistant