Laitobir v Kogo & another (Miscellaneous Case E006 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 486 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the application to transfer Kabiyet ELC No E019 of 2024, an adverse possession claim, to the Environment and Land Court is meritorious, given the magistrate's court's lack of jurisdiction over adverse possession claims
Key legal issues
#Whether the magistrate's court at Kabiyet has jurisdiction over the applicant's adverse possession claim
The magistrate's court lacks jurisdiction over adverse possession claims, justifying transfer of the suit to the Environment and Land Court
The applicant seeks to claim 4.2 acres of land by adverse possession. Following the Court of Appeal's pronouncement in Sugawara v Kiruti that magistrates' courts lack jurisdiction over adverse possession matters, the pending Kabiyet suit cannot properly be determined by that court. Lack of jurisdiction renders decisions void (Republic v Karisa Chengo). The application was unopposed and the court found it firm and merited.
Legal principles established
#- Lack of jurisdiction renders a court's decision void
- The magistrate's court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine adverse possession claims, per the Court of Appeal
Court orders
#- 1.That Kabiyet ELC No E019 of 2024 be called into the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet for hearing and determination before that court (order number 3 sought, paragraph 1(a) of the Notice of Motion)
- 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the suit
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21 Laws of Kenya (application to call for and transfer suit from the magistrate's court at Kabiyet)
Relief refused
#Costs of the application to be provided for
The court instead directed that costs abide the outcome of the suit
Costs
Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the suit.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
That this Honourable Court be pleased to call into this honourable court Kabiyet ELC NO E019 of 2024 for purposes of hearing and determination of the same before this honourable court.
Accordingly, the application is hereby allowed in terms of order number 3 sought therein as stated in paragraph 1 (a) hereinabove.
Costs of the application to abide the outcome of this suit.
It is trite that lack of jurisdiction renders a court’s decision void; see Republic-vs-Karisa Chengo & 2 others (2017) eKLR.
Issues in the judgment
#The coram lists Mr. Sang (instructed by Choge) as counsel for the respondents while Mr. Joshua Lagat is listed for the applicant, but the body of the judgment states the applicant filed through Lagat Joshua and Company Advocates and that Mr Sang instructed by Choge appeared for the respondents - a probable cross-over in the appearances list versus the body
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Laitobir v Kogo & another (Miscellaneous Case E006 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 486 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kapsabet ELC Notice of Motion dated 3rd February 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/486/eng@2025-02-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.