[2025] KEHC 1105 (KLR)
The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and application because the underlying dispute originated from the Environment and Land Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. The High Court cannot confer jurisdiction upon itself nor transfer the matter. As jurisdiction is...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] KEHC 1105 (KLR)
- Parties
- Appellant: Erastus Ochieng’ Olal; Respondent: Jay Jay Holdings Limited
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal E1112 of 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- Application struck out for want of jurisdiction.
- Judges
- TW Ouya
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Courts, Environment and Land Court Mandate, Striking Out Proceedings
- 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
Erastus Ochieng’ Olal
Appellant
Jay Jay Holdings Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal and application arising from a matter that originated in the Environment and Land Court.
- 2 Whether the proceedings should be struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal and application because the underlying dispute originated from the Environment and Land Court, which has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. The High Court cannot confer jurisdiction upon itself nor transfer the matter. As jurisdiction is a threshold issue, the proceedings could not be sustained and were struck out accordingly.
Court Disposition
Application struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Orders
- The appeal and application are struck out for want of jurisdiction.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Olal v Jay Jay Holdings Limited (Civil Appeal E1112 of 2024) [2025] KEHC 1105 (KLR) (Civ) (27 February 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2025] KEHC 1105 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Civil
Civil Appeal E1112 of 2024
TW Ouya, J
February 27, 2025
Between
Erastus Ochieng’ Olal
Appellant
and
Jay Jay Holdings Limited
Respondent
Ruling
1. This is a notice of motion application dated 13th November 2024 by the applicant herein seeking to set aside orders issued inNairobi MCELC Number 362 of 2023. The matter revolves around property described as: “Two Bedroomed G7 situated on the 3rd floor block G Flat/Apartment known as Jay Jay, in Lucky Summer Estate Nairobi”. The substratum of the appeal is prayer for restoration, reinstatement and/or return of the applicant into ownership and an injunction restraining the respondent and/or his agents from letting, leasing, charging, selling, transferring, alienating or in any manner whatsoever interfering with the plaintiff’s investment, ownership and possession and/or occupation of the said property.
2. That the said orders be granted pending the hearing and determination of this appeal pending the hearing and determination of this appeal.
3. The respondent has filed and raised a preliminary objection to the above application and urges this court to determine it summarily on the grounds inter alia that:i.“The primary Suit and judgement appealed against subject of this proceedings originated from Environment and Land Court and issues therein are matters outside the jurisdiction of the High Court.ii.The appeal and the Application on the face of the Memorandum of appeal and the Application are misplaced and ought to be struct out for being filed in the wrong court.iii.The application is overtaken by events the Applicant having been evicted on 15th October 2025in execution of the subject decree….”
4. In Kennedy Mong’are v Loibex Builders Petition No. E088 of 2024 the court pronounced that jurisdiction is primordial in every suit and it has to be there when the suit is filed. The Court also reaffirmed that without jurisdiction no court is capable of making an order for transfer. The same position was held in the court of appeal case of Owners of Motor Vessel ‘Lilian S’ v Caltex Oil (Ltd)[1989]eKLR that without jurisdiction, the court cannot make any more step forward.
5. In Abidha Nicholus v Attorney General & Others ELC Case NO. E007 Of 2023 the court pronounced that without jurisdiction, a court cannot confer jurisdiction upon itself. The subject matter of this application obviously falls under Environment and Land Court jurisdiction and the High Court has got no basis to handle it.
6. This matter having been filed in a court that has no jurisdiction , the same cannot survive. I therefore strike it out.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025. HON. T. W. OUYAJUDGEFor Appellant: No AppearanceFor Respondent: Mr. MirieCourt Assistant: Martin