Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in judgment

Moi v Manyasi (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E015 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3773 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
7 May 2025
GOG M A Ongondo
403 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that magistrates' courts cannot hear adverse possession cases, ordering one land dispute moved to the correct court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a Notice of Motion dated 28th January 2025, the applicant sought orders calling for Kapsabet Magistrates Court E&L Case No. E035 of 2021, an adverse possession (originating summons) suit, to be transferred to the Environment and Land Court for hearing and determination, and for the matter to proceed on a priority basis with the plaintiff amending accordingly, invoking Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. In the supporting affidavit the applicant explained that the suit had been filed before the Kapsabet magistrates' court, and that a Court of Appeal decision has held that magistrates' courts lack jurisdiction over adverse possession claims. There was no response to the application, and Mr Choge urged the court to allow it. Ongondo J, guided by the Court of Appeal decision in Sugawara v Kiruti (2024) eKLR on jurisdiction over adverse possession claims, held that by the character of the plaintiff's claim the magistrate's court lacks jurisdiction. The court further relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Republic v Karisa Chengo & 2 others (2017) eKLR, that lack of jurisdiction renders a court's decision void. Finding the application 'steadfast, cogent and merited', the court allowed the application in terms of orders 2 and 3 sought, directing the transfer of the case to the Environment and Land Court for hearing on a priority basis with liberty for the plaintiff to amend. No costs order was made. The judgment was delivered at Kapsabet on 7th May 2025.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the Kapsabet Magistrates' Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the adverse possession suit in Case No. E035 of 2021
  2. 2.Whether the case should be called for from the magistrates' court and transferred to the Environment and Land Court

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of magistrates' courts over adverse possession claims

Holding

The magistrates' court lacks jurisdiction over adverse possession claims, so the suit must be transferred to the Environment and Land Court

Reasoning

Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Sugawara v Kiruti, the court found that by the character of the plaintiff's claim (adverse possession), the magistrates' court lacks jurisdiction. The court reinforced this with the Supreme Court's holding in Republic v Karisa Chengo that a decision made without jurisdiction is void, making transfer to the ELC the appropriate remedy.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A magistrates' court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine a suit founded on adverse possession
  • Lack of jurisdiction renders a court's decision void (per the Supreme Court in Republic v Karisa Chengo)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 28th January 2025 is allowed in terms of orders 2 and 3 sought therein
  2. 2.Kapsabet Magistrates Court E&L Case No. E035 of 2021 be called for and transferred to the Environment and Land Court for hearing and determination
  3. 3.The matter to proceed for hearing on a priority basis with the Plaintiff amending accordingly, pursuant to Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act

The bench

#

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

GO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) and Section 13 of the 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.

In the result, the instant application, be and is hereby allowed in terms of orders 2 and 3 sought therein as stated in paragraph 1 (a) and (b) hereinabove.
p. 2Disposition - transfer of adverse possession suit
the Supreme Court of Kenya held that lack of jurisdiction renders a court's decision void.
p. 2Effect of want of jurisdiction
on jurisdiction over adverse possession claims, the magistrate's court lacks jurisdiction over the suit.
p. 2Magistrates' jurisdiction over adverse possession

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The judgment does not state the case number or title of the application itself, and the respondent is never named

minor

The record contains three unnumbered/empty paragraphs (1-3) at the start before the substantive text begins

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Moi v Manyasi (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E015 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3773 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3773/eng@2025-05-07

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