[2018] KEELC 4111 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 4111 (KLR)

The court held that the claim, being one of title to land by way of adverse possession, falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court as provided by Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act. The Magistrate’s Court does not have jurisdiction to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 4111 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Stephen Oketch Oracha; Respondent: Omar Feisal Mohammed Jama
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Migori
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 312 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit to Magistrate's Court
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
GMA Ongondo
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Courts, Adverse Possession, Transfer of Suit
Source Language
en
Land and Property Jurisdiction of Courts Adverse Possession Transfer of Suit

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 2 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Oketch Oracha

Applicant

Omar Feisal Mohammed Jama

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Transfer Suit to Magistrate's Court

  1. 1 Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit based on adverse possession.
  2. 2 Whether the suit should be transferred to the Magistrate's Court at Migori as requested by the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claim, being one of title to land by way of adverse possession, falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court as provided by Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act. The Magistrate’s Court does not have jurisdiction to hear and determine such matters. The application to transfer the suit to the Magistrate’s Court at Migori was therefore unmerited and was disallowed. The court further directed that the originating summons and replying affidavit be treated as the plaint and statement of defence, respectively, and set the matter down for pre-trial directions.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 11/5/2016 is disallowed.
  • No orders as to costs.