Download PDF

Kenya Judgment

Environment and Land Court · Environment and Land Court at Bungoma

Wafula (Suing as the Attorney of Dismus Wanjala Wochuna) v Murunga & 6 others [2025] KEELC 5410 (KLR)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court held that it could not grant the orders sought by the applicant because the original court file had been formally transferred to the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu, and there was no official communication confirming its loss or unavailability. The transfer of a suit between courts must follow statutory and procedural requirements, including a formal application and notice to all parties. Entertaining the application in a holding file would risk parallel proceedings and offend the doctrine of sub judice. The applicant had not demonstrated compliance with the proper procedure for transfer, nor provided evidence that the original file was lost or missing. Accordingly, the application was dismissed for lack of merit.

Court disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 17th September 2024 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

02

Material facts

Parties

Benjamin Barasa Wafula (Suing as the Attorney of Dismus Wanjala Wochuna)

Applicant

Gladys Nekoye Murunga

Defendant Counsel: M/S Masengeli

Elgon Religious Society Of Friends Church

Defendant

Joseck Simiyu Prichani

Defendant

Stephen Barasa Waswa

Defendant

Geofrey Wafula Wasilwa

Defendant

Paul Seme

Defendant

Catherine Barasa

Defendant

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Chamber Summons Application Regarding Transfer and Vesting Orders

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicant argued that the transfer of the original file to Kisumu was done without his or his attorney's consent, contrary to jurisdictional rules, and that it is in the interests of justice for the matter to be heard in Bungoma, where the land and parties are situated. He claimed hardship in attending Kisumu sessions and alleged procedural irregularities and forgery by the respondents. He sought vesting orders and return of the file to Bungoma.
Respondent
The 1st respondent argued that the applicant, acting under a power of attorney, lacks capacity to draw legal documents, issue summons, or represent the objector in court as he purports to do. She relied on a previous court ruling cautioning the applicant and contended that the application is incompetent and should be dismissed.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Section 18(1)(b)(i) of the Civil Procedure Act

    Transfer of proceedings between courts must be by order of the court upon formal application and with notice to all parties.

  2. 02

    Civil Procedure Act; general principles of natural justice

    A court cannot make substantive orders in the absence of the original file or on the basis of unverified allegations regarding its status.

  3. 03

    Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act; Kenya National Commission on Human Rights v Attorney General; Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (Interested Party) [2020] eKLR

    Entertaining parallel proceedings offends the doctrine of sub judice and risks forum shopping and duplication of judicial effort.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court held that it could not grant the orders sought by the applicant because the original court file had been formally transferred to the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu, and there was no official communication confirming its loss or unavailability. The transfer of a suit between courts must follow statutory and procedural requirements, including a formal application and notice to all parties. Entertaining the application in a holding file would risk parallel proceedings and offend the doctrine of sub judice. The applicant had not demonstrated compliance with the proper procedure for transfer, nor provided evidence that the original file was lost or missing. Accordingly, the application was dismissed for lack of merit.

Obiter and limits

  • The applicant's submissions were unduly lengthy, incoherent, and failed to address the pertinent issues, making it difficult for the court to discern the intended arguments.
  • It would be improper and procedurally untenable for this court to entertain or determine an application in a holding file which may be running parallel to proceedings before a court of competent and concurrent jurisdiction.

Court disposition

application dismissed

  • The application dated 17th September 2024 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.

Source and reliance status

Environment and Land Court

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Environment and Land Court

Judgment

[2025] KEELC 5410 (KLR)

Wafula (Suing as the Attorney of Dismus Wanjala Wochuna) v Murunga & 6 others (Environment and Land Case 118 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 5410 (KLR) (17 July 2025) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 5410 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Environment and Land Court at Bungoma

Environment and Land Case 118 of 2015

EC Cherono, J

July 17, 2025

Between

Benjamin Barasa Wafula (Suing As The Attorney Of Dismus Wanjala Wochuna)

Objector

and

Gladys Nekoye Murunga

1st Defendant

Elgon Religious Society Of Friends Church

2nd Defendant

Joseck Simiyu Prichani

3rd Defendant

Stephen Barasa Waswa

4th Defendant

Geofrey Wafula Wasilwa

5th Defendant

Paul Seme

6th Defendant

Catherine Barasa

7th Defendant

Ruling

1. Before me for determination is the Chamber Summons application dated 28/02/2025 brought under Order 37: Rules 1 (f), 3, 8 and 11 and Order 13: Rules 1 & 2 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 through; The Law of Succession Act Cap 160: Section 54 and Paragraph 14 of the Fifth Schedule and Article 22: Clauses 1 & 2 (a – c); Article 50: Clauses 4, 6, 8, 9; 51: Clauses 1 & 2 (a – c) and 258: Clauses 1 & 2 (a – c) of the Constitution of Kenya seeking the following orders;a.That, it pleases this Hon. Court to hear this Application on the 4th day of March, 2025 on priorities; due to the utmost urgency hereof.b.That, pending tracing the main file from Kisumu and Bungoma ELC Registries; it pleases this Hon. Court to hear the Chamber Summons dated 17th September, 2024 through the Holding File; which was diligently opened, pursuant to the Order of the Court given and issued on 24th October, 2024. c.That, it pleases this Hon. Court to issue Vesting Orders, requesting the Kisumu Environment and Land Court Trial Judge; to return the main file to Bungoma Environment and Land Court, which was transferred without the consent of the Plaintiff’s/Applicant’s Attorney, contrary to the Judicial Civil Geographical Jurisdictional Rules.d.It pleases this Hon. Court to equally award Costs of this Chamber Summons to the Plaintiff/Applicant herein.

2. The application is based on the grounds on the face of the said application supported by the affidavit of the Applicant sworn on an even date. The Applicant his supporting affidavit deposed as follows;a.That, I know of my own knowledge, it’s for the interests of justice to hear these Claims from this Hon. Court on priorities, then stay the 1st up to 7th Defendants; from grabbing, selling, alienating, subletting and transferring the late Yohana Ochuna Maelo’s Estate, through the late Zephaniah Lusweti Murunga.b.That, I know of my own knowledge, the Plaintiff/Applicant and his Attorney, were not consulted, when their main file was transferred to Kisumu Environment and Land Court, contrary to the Judicial Civil Geographical Jurisdictional Rules.c.That, I know of my own knowledge, it’s very expensive for the Plaintiff / Applicant and his Attorney, to attend Court at Sessions at Kisumu; because they don’t possess enough funds.d.That, I know of my own knowledge, it’s for the interests of justice to hear the Plaintiff’s Claims from this Hon. Court, because, the Subject matters being LR. No. Kimilili/Kamukuywa 337 and 339; are situated in the North-West of Bungoma County, Kimilili Sub-County, Makhonge Location, Chesamisi Village.e.That, I know of my own knowledge, it’s for the interests of justice to hear the Plaintiff’s Claims from this Hon. Court, because, all parties to this

Case, are natives and residents in the North-West of Bungoma County, Kimilili Sub-County, Makhonge Location, Chesamisi Village.f.That, I know of my own knowledge, it’s for the interests of justice to hear the Plaintiff’s Claims from this Hon. Court, because, the witnesses who can witness about the relations of the Plaintiff, his Attorney and the late Yohana Ochuna Maelo; are natives and residents in the North-West of Bungoma County, Kimilili Sub-County, Makhonge Location, Chesamisi Village.g.That, I know of my own knowledge, it’s for the interests of justice to hear the Plaintiff’s Claims from this Hon. Court, because, I’ve unsuccessfully attempted to map the Kisumu Environment and Land Case No. 4 of 2019. h.That, I know of my own knowledge, it’s for the interests of justice to hear the Plaintiff’s Claims from this Hon. Court, because, I’ve unsuccessfully requested for Registration of the Kisumu Environment and Land Case No. 4 of 2019. i.That, I know of my own knowledge, it’s for the interests of justice to hear the Plaintiff’s Claims from this Hon. Court, because, the current Trial Judge of Bungoma Environment and Land Court; while knowing That, the main file of this case was transferred to Kisumu Environment and Land Court, issued practicing directions on the current Holding File already being used.j.That, I know of my own knowledge, all the deposed herein, are true to the best of my knowledge, information, belief and understanding.

3. The 1st Respondent filed a Replying affidavit in opposition thereto sworn on 02/04/2025 in which she deposed That the Applicant who has a power of Attorney cannot, under the Advocates Act draw legal documents, issue summons to other parties, appear in court and represent the objector in the manner That he purports to. That this Honorable Court issued a ruling on 28th July, 2016 and cautioned the Applicant herein against what he now purports to do. That based on the foregoing, the Applicant lacks capacity to institute the foregoing and represent the objector and the application must fail. She asked the court to dismiss the application.

4. The Applicant filed a supplementary affidavit sworn on 16/05/2025 where he deposed That the Respondents herein are depriving him of the use of 6acres of LR. No. Kimilili/Kamukuywa/339. That the Hon. Trial Judge Hon. Lady Justice Ali Avita Aroni (as she then was) omitted to consider the Plaintiff/Applicant herein together with his Co-Siblings while Sharing the Estate of the late Yohana Ochuna Maelo as confirmed in the grant issued on the 12/07/2012. That the Hon. Trial Judge Hon. Lady Justice Ali Avita Aroni, omitted to consider how the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, together with his Co-Siblings consented the Power of Attorney No. 651 of 2016 before the Bungoma District Land Registrar on the 24/02/2016. That the trial Judge Hon. Lady Ali Avita. Aroni, omitted to consider how the 1st Defendant/Respondent herein forged the Green Card of LR. No. Kimilili/Kamukuywa/337 cheating That, her biological father Zephaniah Murunga Lusweti, who died on 01/05/1995 died before 05/05/1985. That the Respondents have not demonstrated how the late Zephaniah Murunga Lusweti died on 05/05/1986 according to Survey and Land Registry Records. That the Respondents have produced/submitted on a forged Land Sale Agreement dated 03/05/ 1984.

5. When the applications came for directions, the parties agreed to have the same canvassed by way of written submissions.

6. The Applicant filed unduly lengthy submissions dated 21/04/2025. The said submissions are marked by incoherence, lacked logical structure and failed to address the pertinent issues raised in the application making it difficult for this court to discern the Applicant’s intended arguments. The 1st Respondent on the other hand filed her submissions dated 02/05/2025.

Analysis and determination.

7. I have considered the application under review and matters canvassed in the said application which are relevant to the present ruling.

8. The background of this case is That the original Court file was transferred to the Environment and Land Court, Kisumu by Justice B. Olao for further hearing and determination vide a letter dated 20/01/2020. This was after the Applicant herein filed a suit against the then trial Judge Hon Mr. Justice B. Olao who thereafter recused himself from dealing with the suit. After the Judge transferred this suit and the original file forwarded to the ELC Kisumu, a holding file was created on 09/10/2024 and the Applicant herein requested to have the original court file returned to this court for further action. On 04/03/2025, the Applicant informed the court That he went to Kisumu in search of the original file but he could not trace it. It is then That he (the Applicant) filed the present application using the ‘holding file’.

9. In light of the foregoing, and given the Applicant's knowledge of the circumstances surrounding the transfer of the original file to the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu, he cannot purport to have been unaware of the same.Concerning the prayer to have the application dated 17/09/2024 filed in this ‘holding file’ heard, I find That this court is not in a position to grant the orders sought in the present application, which has been created in the present holding file without first ascertaining the status and retrieving the original court file from the ELC Court in Kisumu. As far as I aware, the original Court file was transferred to the Environment and Land Court in Kisumu for hearing and determination and no official communication has been received That the same is either lost and/or missing. The transfer of a suit from one court to another is governed by clear statutory and procedural provisions, particularly Section 18(1)(b)(i) of the Civil Procedure Act, which provides That any transfer of proceedings must be by an order of the court upon formal application and with notice to all parties. This court cannot therefore, in total disregard of established procedural rules and principles of natural justice, make substantive orders in a vacuum or on the basis of unverified allegations. The Applicant, if genuinely desirous of having the matter transferred back to this court, must follow the appropriate legal procedures for effecting such a transfer.

10. Additionally, this court has not been presented with any formal communication or documentation from the Kisumu Environment and Land Court to support the applicant’s claim That the original court file would not be traced. In the absence of any confirmation from the Deputy Registrar, ELC Kisumu That the original court file in respect of this suit cannot be traced, this court must proceed on the presumption That the matter is either pending or actively proceeding before That court. It would therefore be improper and procedurally untenable for this court to entertain or determine an application in a ‘holding file’ which may be running parallel to proceedings before a court of competent and concurrent jurisdiction.Such a course of action would offend the doctrine of sub judice under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act as well as the principles laid down in Kenya National Commission on Human Rights v Attorney General; Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (Interested Party) [2020] eKLR, which cautions against the risk of forum shopping and duplication of judicial effort.

11. Consequentially, the application dated 17th September 2024 is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. However, I make no order as to costs.

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT BUNGOMA THIS 17TH DAY OF JULY, 2025. .............................HON.E.C CHERONOELC JUDGEIn the presence of;1. Applicant-present.2. M/S Masengeli for the 1st Respondent.3. Bett C/A.

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Kenya National Commission on Human Rights v Attorney General; Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (Interested Party) [2020] eKLR

Case cited

Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 Section 18(1)(b)(i)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 Section 6

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Constitution of Kenya Article 22, 50, 51, 258

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Law of Succession Act Cap 160 Section 54 and Paragraph 14 of the Fifth Schedule

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.