[2022] KEHC 13799 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 13799 (KLR)

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals relating to tenancy or lease disputes, as such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of courts established under article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya. The tenancy agreement in question concerns occupation and use of land, and thus the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 13799 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: National Cereal & Produce Board; Respondent: Edward Juma Malovi Trading As Taza Chemists
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 103 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
appeal struck out for want of jurisdiction
Judges
WM Musyoka
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of High Court, Tenancy Disputes, Statute Barred Claims
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Jurisdiction of High Court Tenancy Disputes Statute Barred Claims

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Cereal & Produce Board

Appellant

Edward Juma Malovi Trading As Taza Chemists

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to hear an appeal relating to a tenancy dispute under articles 162(2) and 165(5) of the Constitution of Kenya.
  2. 2 Whether the appeal should be transferred to the court with proper jurisdiction or struck out.
  3. 3 Whether the original claim was statute-barred.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals relating to tenancy or lease disputes, as such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of courts established under article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya. The tenancy agreement in question concerns occupation and use of land, and thus the appeal should not have been filed in the High Court. Furthermore, case law establishes that actions filed in a court without jurisdiction are incompetent and should not be transferred to the proper court, but rather struck out. As the respondent did not participate in the proceedings, no order as to costs was made. The appeal was accordingly struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

appeal struck out for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • The appeal is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
  • No order as to costs.