Tuitoek v Kogo & another (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3582 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that adverse possession claims must be heard by the ELC, so a landowner's case was moved from the magistrate's court.
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 magistrate's court case E027 of 2024 should be called into this Court and transferred to the Environment and Land Court for hearing and determination, given that adverse possession claims fall within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court
Key legal issues
#Whether the subordinate court suit over adverse possession should be transferred to the Environment and Land Court
The application was allowed; the magistrate's court case is to be called into and transferred to the Environment and Land Court for hearing and determination.
The applicant sought transfer of a pending adverse possession suit from Kabiyet Magistrate's Court to the Environment and Land Court, relying on a Court of Appeal decision holding that adverse possession claims fall within the ELC's jurisdiction, and on the Supreme Court's decision in Republic v Karisa Chengo on jurisdiction generally. The application was unopposed by the respondents. Applying those authorities, the court found the application firm and meritorious and allowed it in terms of the principal order sought.
Legal principles established
#- Issues of adverse possession fall within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court.
- Jurisdictional questions are determined in accordance with Supreme Court guidance in Republic v Karisa Chengo & 2 others.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 20th January 2025 is allowed in terms of order 3 sought therein, namely that Kabiyet Magistrate's Court Case number E027 of 2024 be called into this Honourable Court for purpose of transferring the same to this Honourable Court for hearing and determination
- 2.The entire application is thereby disposed of
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 11, 12, 15 and 18(e) of the Civil Procedure Act; sections 17 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act; Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010
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.
This court is guided by the Court of Appeal decision in Sugawara v Kiruti ... on jurisdiction over adverse possession claims and the Supreme Court of Kenya decision in Republic v Karisa Chengo & 2 others (2017) eKLR on jurisdiction generally. So, I find the application firm and meritorious.
Wherefore, the application be and is hereby allowed in terms of orders 3 sought in the application as stated in paragraph 1 hereinabove thus, the entire application is thereby disposed of.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment repeatedly cites 'section 3.3A' of the Civil Procedure Act, an apparent misprint, and a partially garbled citation 'section 18(e of the Civil Procedure Act'.
Misspelling in judgment text ('efiect' for 'effect') and in the case name ('Mutaragwa Kiroti Leposo').
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tuitoek v Kogo & another (Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E003 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3582 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kabiyet Magistrate's Court Case E027 of 2024 (transfer application dated 20th January 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3582/eng@2025-05-06
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.