https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4188
The court declined transfer because the plaintiff failed to show any evidence that the defendant had compulsorily acquired, was acquiring, or was likely to acquire the land. Since the pleadings sought a permanent injunction rather than compensation, the Land Acquisition Tribunal had no demonstrated jurisdiction,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELC 4188 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff / Applicants: KENNDY ANUNDA ROGITO & 2 OTHERS; Defendant / Respondent: KENYA ELECTION TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD (KETRACO)
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Case 339 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Court Ruling on Transfer Application / Application for Transfer to Land Acquisition Tribunal
- Outcome
- Application dismissed; file to proceed before the Environment and Land Court
- Judges
- ["AA Omollo"]
- Legal Topics
- Transfer of Suit, Jurisdiction of Land Acquisition Tribunal, Compulsory Acquisition, Permanent Injunction, Prematurity of Claim
- 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
KENNDY ANUNDA ROGITO & 2 OTHERS
Plaintiff / Applicants
KENYA ELECTION TRANSMISSION COMPANY LTD (KETRACO)
Defendant / Respondent
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Court Ruling on Transfer Application / Application for Transfer to Land Acquisition Tribunal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit could be transferred to the Land Acquisition Tribunal under section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act and section 133C of the Land Act
- 2 Whether the Land Acquisition Tribunal had jurisdiction on the facts pleaded
- 3 Whether the claim was premature in the absence of evidence of compulsory acquisition
Ratio Decidendi
The court declined transfer because the plaintiff failed to show any evidence that the defendant had compulsorily acquired, was acquiring, or was likely to acquire the land. Since the pleadings sought a permanent injunction rather than compensation, the Land Acquisition Tribunal had no demonstrated jurisdiction, making transfer premature.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed; file to proceed before the Environment and Land Court
Orders
- The application to transfer the matter to the Land Acquisition Tribunal is declined.
- The case shall proceed before this court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KISII** **ELC CASE NO. 339 OF 2014** **KENNDY ANUNDA ROGITO & 2 OTHERS ..PLAINTIFF / APPLICANTS** # Versus **KENYA ELECTION TRANSMISSION** ### COMPANY LTD (KETRACO)...................DEFENDANT / RESPONDENT ## RULING 1. This determination is pursuant to the directions by Munyao Sila J (as he then was) made on 9.12.2025. He raised the question whether the case is transferrable to the Land Acquisition Tribunal or whether a fresh claim should be filed before the said Tribunal. 2. In addressing the question posed, the Plaintiff filed written submissions dated 11.12.2025. He submitted on the provisions of Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act which states thus:- **“(1) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desire to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court may at any stage—** **(a) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or** 1. The plaintiff further submitted on the provisions of Section 133C of the Land Act which outlines the Jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Tribunal. 2. It is trite that the superior courts do transfer matters to the Magistrate’s Courts either suo motu or on the application of a party. 3. Previously, transferring a matter from a superior court to the Tribunal would have been difficult because of the disconnect of where to send the file. Currently, we have a registry that hosts all Tribunals under the Judiciary's umbrella. Thus, making it possible to apply the provisions of Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act to this case. 4. This court must, however, consider whether the Land Acquisition Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain the claim before transferring the file. The Plaintiff is seeking the following relief in the Plaint 5. **A permanent injunction to issue restraining the defendant either by itself / agents and/or servants from trespassing, transferring, alienating, developing and / or in any other way interfering with the deceased’s property L. R. BONYAMOYIO / BOSIGISA / BOBURIA / 513 pending the hearing and determination of this suit.** 6. **Cost of this suit** 7. **Any other relief this Honourable Court may deem fit and expedient to grant.** 8. At paragraph 5 of the Defence, the Defendant plead thus:- **“Further, the defendant has no intention of compulsorily acquiring the Plaintiff’s alleged land and the plaintiff’s claim is based on unfounded fear and is entirely premature.”** 1. The request to transfer the matter was being made in 2025, some ten (10) years after the filing of this suit. The Plaintiff has not provided additional evidence to the court which would invoke the jurisdiction of the Land Acquisition Tribunal. As of now, the claim for compensation does not arise where the defendant has pleaded that it is not compulsorily acquiring the suit land. 2. It will be premature to send the file to the Land Acquisition Tribunal without evidence that the acquisition has taken place or is likely to take place. The Plaintiff has also not sought compensation orders, instead seeking orders for a permanent ‘injunction’ to stop the trespass. 3. The end result is that I decline to grant the application to transfer the matter to the Land Acquisition Tribunal. The case to proceed before this court. **Dated, Signed and Delivered at Kisii this 2nd day of July, 2026.** 1. **OMOLLO** **JUDGE**