[2021] KEHC 4256 (KLR)
The court found that the core dispute in the lower court proceedings was ownership of land, specifically LR No. Ruiru/Ruiru East Block 2/3439. Under the Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act, such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court. Consequently, the High...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 4256 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Samuel Wanjohi Kinyanjui; Applicant: Njoroge Kinyanjui; Applicant: Samuel Gathee Mwangi; Applicant: Isaac Karanja; Applicant: Jackson Njoroge; Respondent: John Ngure Gaiko
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kiambu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 333 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- Application not determined for want of jurisdiction; matter transferred to Environment and Land Court Thika.
- Judges
- CW Meoli
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Transfer of Suit, Ownership of Land
- 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
Samuel Wanjohi Kinyanjui
Applicant
Njoroge Kinyanjui
Applicant
Samuel Gathee Mwangi
Applicant
Isaac Karanja
Applicant
Jackson Njoroge
Applicant
John Ngure Gaiko
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time and Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court at Kiambu has jurisdiction to hear the application for leave to appeal out of time regarding ownership of land.
- 2 Whether the application should be transferred to the Environment and Land Court at Thika.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the core dispute in the lower court proceedings was ownership of land, specifically LR No. Ruiru/Ruiru East Block 2/3439. Under the Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act, such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court. Consequently, the High Court at Kiambu lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for leave to appeal out of time. The proper course was to transfer the application to the Environment and Land Court at Thika for hearing and determination. The court also set aside its own proceedings of 17th June 2020, having acted without jurisdiction.
Court Disposition
Application not determined for want of jurisdiction; matter transferred to Environment and Land Court Thika.
Orders
- The application dated 27th September 2019 is transferred to the Environment and Land Court at Thika for hearing and determination.
- Proceedings taken before the High Court on 17th June 2020 are set aside suo motu.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KIAMBU
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 333 of 2019
SAMUEL WANJOHI KINYANJUI.....................................1ST APPLICANT
NJOROGE KINYANJUI....................................................2ND APPLICANT
SAMUEL GATHEE MWANGI.............................................3RD APPLICANT
ISAAC KARANJA.............................................................4TH APPLICANT
JACKSON NJOROGE......................................................5TH APPLICANT
VERSUS
JOHN NGURE GAIKO..........................................................RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The undisputed background to the motion dated 27th September, 2019, as can be gleaned from the sparse affidavit sworn by Njoroge Kinyanjui (2nd Applicant) and the replying affidavit of John Ngure Gaiko (the Respondent) is as follows. The Respondent had sued the 2nd Applicant and Samuel Wanjohi Kinyanjui (1st Applicant) initially in Thika CMCC No. 841 of 2013. The suit related to the land parcel described as LR No. Ruiru/Ruiru East Block 2/3439(hereafter the suit property).
2. Subsequently the plaint was amended to include Samuel Gathee Mwangi, Isaac Karanja and Jackson Njoroge (the 3rd to 5th Applicants, respectively) as the 3rd to 5th Defendants. The matter proceeded exparte on 31st October, 2018 and judgment was delivered on 5th December 2018 requiring the Defendants to vacate the suit property.
3. A subsequent application to have the judgment set aside was refused and the Applicants filed the present application seeking leave to file an appeal out of time. The court having now reviewed the record of the parties’ affidavits and annexures has concluded that at the heart of the dispute in the Lower Court suit was the ownership of the suit property, and that the application to appeal out of time ought to have been filed in the Environment and Land Court (ELC) at Thika. In the circumstances, this court cannot proceed to determine the application dated 27th September 2019 for want of jurisdiction.
4. The matter is accordingly transferred to the ELC Thika for hearing and determination. Proceedings taken before me on 17th June, 2020 when the application was argued are hereby set aside suo motu.
DELIVERED AND SIGNED ELECTRONICALLY ON THIS 29TH DAY OF JULY 2021
C. MEOLI
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Ms Kanja for the Respondent
N/A for the Applicants
Kevin: Court Assistant