Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated on face of judgment (Originating Summons dated 16th February, 2024)

Kingola v Mulwa (Land Case E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3625 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 May 2025
EOE. O. Obaga
804 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court, not magistrates' courts, alone hears adverse possession land claims, so squatters' ownership suits filed there are safe from jurisdiction objections.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff/Applicant filed an Originating Summons dated 16th February 2024 seeking registration as proprietor of Title Number Makueni/Kalongo/787 by way of adverse possession. The Respondent filed a preliminary objection on 6th March 2024 contending that the suit offended Section 26(3) and (4) of the Environment and Land Court Act and Section 9 of the Magistrates' Court Act, and that the court was deprived of jurisdiction. In submissions, Respondent's Counsel argued that the suit property measures approximately 0.95 acres and is worth under Kshs.15 million, so the summons should have been filed in the magistrates' court at Kilungu, and that filing in Makueni breached Section 12 of the Civil Procedure Act. The Applicant's Counsel maintained that jurisdiction over adverse possession under Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act lies with the High Court/Environment and Land Court, relying on Kisaka v Muyia, Peter Salai Mwalagaya v Murtaza Hussein Bandali and Allan Mupe Bakari v Diani Sea Lodge. The court framed one issue: whether its jurisdiction was properly invoked. Relying on Section 38(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act and the Court of Appeal's decision in Sugawara v Kiruti, the court held that adverse possession claims are exclusively for the Environment and Land Court to the exclusion of the magistrates' court. The preliminary objection was dismissed with costs to the Applicant on 8th May 2025.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the jurisdiction of this court to hear and determine the suit has been properly invoked by the Plaintiff/Applicant

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Environment and Land Court, and not the magistrates' court, has jurisdiction over claims for registration of land by adverse possession

Holding

Section 38(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act vests jurisdiction over adverse possession claims exclusively in the Environment and Land Court; the preliminary objection failed.

Reasoning

The court found the originating summons was an adverse possession claim under Section 38(1). Applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Sugawara v Kiruti, it held that a strict interpretation of section 38 limits hearing and determination of such matters to the Environment and Land Court, Parliament having not expressly conferred such jurisdiction on magistrates' courts. The objection on pecuniary and territorial grounds therefore failed.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Hearing and determination of claims for adverse possession is exclusively vested in the Environment and Land Court to the exclusion of the Magistrates' Court.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection dated 4th March, 2024 is dismissed with costs to the Applicant

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

EO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Section 38(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act; Environment and Land Court Act

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.

The upshot is that the preliminary objection dated 4th March, 2024 is devoid of merit and is dismissed with costs to the Applicant.
p. 3disposition
hearing and determination of such matters is specifically limited to the Environment and Land Court to the exclusion of Magistrates' Court.
p. 2exclusive jurisdiction of ELC over adverse possession claims

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The preliminary objection is dated inconsistently within the judgment: filed on 6th March, 2024 at paragraph 2, but dismissed as dated 4th March, 2024 at paragraph 13.

minor

Paragraph 3 lists authorities relied on by Counsel 'to buttress the submission that the preliminary objection is without merit' but they are attributed inconsistently - the numbered list appears under the Respondent's submissions.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kingola v Mulwa (Land Case E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3625 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated on face of judgment (Originating Summons dated 16th February, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3625/eng@2025-05-08

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.