[2023] KEELC 21479 (KLR)
The court found that the monetary value of the claim, as pleaded in the plaint, falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the magistrates’ court. The plaintiffs sought, in the alternative, a refund of 73 heads of cattle or their monetary equivalent, which was stated to be Kshs. 1,245,000. This amount is within the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 21479 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Koinet Ole Nkotiko; Plaintiff: Kintasunye Ene Nkoitiko; Defendant: Peter Tinkoi Ole Letoluo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E008 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Suit transferred to Narok Chief Magistrates’ Court for hearing and determination; preliminary objection to be heard by the magistrates’ court.
- Judges
- CG Mbogo
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Courts, Transfer of Land, Pecuniary Jurisdiction, Preliminary Objection
- 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
Koinet Ole Nkotiko
Plaintiff
Kintasunye Ene Nkoitiko
Plaintiff
Peter Tinkoi Ole Letoluo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter given the pecuniary value involved.
- 2 Whether the matter should be transferred to the magistrates’ court for determination.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the monetary value of the claim, as pleaded in the plaint, falls within the pecuniary jurisdiction of the magistrates’ court. The plaintiffs sought, in the alternative, a refund of 73 heads of cattle or their monetary equivalent, which was stated to be Kshs. 1,245,000. This amount is within the statutory limits of the magistrates’ court. Therefore, the Environment and Land Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. The proper course is to transfer the suit to the Narok Chief Magistrates’ Court for hearing and determination. The court declined to determine the preliminary objection and directed that it be heard by the magistrates’ court.
Court Disposition
Suit transferred to Narok Chief Magistrates’ Court for hearing and determination; preliminary objection to be heard by the magistrates’ court.
Orders
- This matter is transferred to Narok Chief Magistrates’ Court for hearing and determination on a priority basis.
- Mention on 5th December, 2023 before the learned Chief Magistrate for further directions.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Nkotiko & another v Letoluo (Environment & Land Case E008 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 21479 (KLR) (15 November 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 21479 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Narok
Environment & Land Case E008 of 2022
CG Mbogo, J
November 15, 2023
Between
Koinet Ole Nkotiko
1st Plaintiff
Kintasunye Ene Nkoitiko
2nd Plaintiff
and
Peter Tinkoi Ole Letoluo
Defendant
Ruling
1. When I retired to write the ruling in respect of the plaintiffs’ Notice of Preliminary Objection dated July 8, 2023 and filed in court on 10th July, 2023 and upon the perusal of the pleadings contained in this file, I realized that this is a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of the magistrates’ court. I have perused the plaint dated 27th July, 2022 where the plaintiffs have sought the following prayers: -a.A declaration that the agreement dated 5th June, 2017 for the transfer of 70 acres from the land registered as CisMara/Olkinyei/1100 between the 1st plaintiff and defendant herein was fatally unprocedural, irregular, unjustified, baseless, unlawful, illegal, invalid and null and void ab initio.b.An order of permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs’ quiet possession and trespassing on land registered as CisMara/Olkinyei/1100. c.In the alternative, this honourable court be pleased to order a refund of seventy-three (73) heads of cattle owed to the defendant or its equivalent in monetary terms as at the time of the agreement.d.Costs of this suit; ande.Any other relief the court deems fit to grant.
2. The plaint, in paragraph 8 stated; ‘that the amount owed to the defendant was a sum of Kenya Shillings one Million Two Hundred and Forty-Five Thousand which was equivalent to eighty-three heads of cattle with each head of cattle being Kshs. Fifteen Thousand. (15,000/-).’
3. In their prayer (c) of the plaint, the plaintiff sought an equivalent of the heads of cattle in monetary terms which in my view grants the magistrates’ court pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter.
4. To this end, it would be preferable that this matter is heard before the magistrates’ court for determination. This court is hesitant to determine the notice of preliminary objection at this stage and directs that the same be heard by the magistrates’ court.
5. As such, this matter is transferred Narok Chief Magistrates’ court for hearing and determination on a priority basis. It is so ordered. Mention on 5th December, 2023 before the learned Chief Magistrate for further directions.
DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED VIA EMAIL on this 15TH day of NOVEMBER, 2023. HON. MBOGO C.G.JUDGE