Lagat & another v Cheruiyot (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3568 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that adverse possession claims must be heard there, not in magistrates' courts, and ordered a land case transferred.
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 Kapsabet Chief Magistrate's Court lacks jurisdiction over the counterclaim in Land Case E020 of 2023 raising adverse possession
- 2.Whether the suit should be called into this Court and transferred to the Environment and Land Court for hearing and determination
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction over adverse possession claims
The Chief Magistrate's Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a counterclaim sounding in adverse possession; such claims belong to the Environment and Land Court.
The court relied on the Court of Appeal decision in Sugawara v Kiruti (2024) eKLR on jurisdiction over adverse possession claims and the Supreme Court decision in Republic v Karisa Chengo & 2 others (2017) eKLR on jurisdiction generally. The respondent did not oppose the transfer. Finding the magistrates' court without jurisdiction, the judge allowed the transfer of the entire suit.
Legal principles established
#- Issues of adverse possession are the preserve of the Environment and Land Court
Court orders
#- 1.The Kapsabet Chief Magistrate's Court Land Case number E020 of 2023 is to be called into this Court and transferred to this Honourable Court for hearing and determination (order 3 of the application granted)
- 2.The application in entirety is disposed of accordingly
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over adverse possession claims (as declared in Court of Appeal Civil Appeal E141 of 2022 and Republic v Karisa Chengo & 2 others (2017) eKLR)
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.
In the upshot, the application is hereby allowed in terms of order 3 sought in the application as stated in paragraph 1 hereinabove and the application in entirety is disposed of accordingly.
Having considered the entire application and subscribing to the Court of Appeal decision in Sugawara v Kiruti
It is apparent that Kapsabet Chief Magistrate court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the counter claim in the said suit as currently constituted.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number of the application itself nor the parties' names in the title; the applicant's name is only inferred from the advocates' firm name
Recurring typographical errors in the judgment ('efiect', 'Plaintifi', 'reespondent')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lagat & another v Cheruiyot (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3568 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 13th January 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3568/eng@2025-05-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.