Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedCivil Appeal E141 of 2022 (referenced); Vihiga PM ELC No 17 of 2019 (the suit transferred)

Odinga v Ambundo & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4439 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
12 June 2025
380 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 magistrate's courts cannot decide adverse possession claims, so a Vihiga land dispute was transferred to the ELC.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 5 March 2025 by Joseph Mukuna Odinga, the defendant in Vihiga PM ELC No 17 of 2019, seeking transfer of that suit to the Environment and Land Court for trial and determination. The respondents had sued as registered proprietors of land parcel West Bunyore/Esiandumba/7X1 measuring 0.26 Ha along the Luanda-Siaya Road. In the subordinate suit the applicant filed a counterclaim asserting open and peaceful adverse possession of the suit land for a period exceeding 12 years. The application was grounded on the position, stated to have been decided in Civil Appeal E141 of 2022, that magistrates' courts lack jurisdiction to hear and determine adverse possession suits. The application was unopposed; an affidavit of service sworn by James Oyondi Mukabi on 19 March 2025 confirmed service on the respondents' advocates by email. The court held that while the respondents' suit was within the magistrate's jurisdiction, the counterclaim based on adverse possession fell outside it under section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act. Because the suit and counterclaim were intertwined, and the defendant was entitled to raise adverse possession in his defence, the court found transfer to be in the interest of justice. The application was allowed in terms of prayer 1, transferring the entire suit to the ELC for hearing and disposal, with no orders as to costs.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the Magistrate's court had jurisdiction to determine the counterclaim based on adverse possession
  2. 2.Whether Vihiga PM ELC No 17 of 2019 should be transferred to the Environment and Land Court

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of magistrate's courts over adverse possession claims

Holding

The counterclaim based on adverse possession falls outside the magistrate's court's jurisdiction under section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act.

Reasoning

The court distinguished the main suit, which was within the magistrate's jurisdiction, from the counterclaim asserting possession for over 12 years. Since adverse possession claims are governed by section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act, and a prior appeal decision had established that magistrates' courts lack jurisdiction over such suits, the counterclaim could not be tried in the subordinate court.

p. 2
02

Transfer of the suit in the interest of justice

Holding

Because the suit and counterclaim are intertwined, the whole suit was transferred to the ELC in the interest of justice.

Reasoning

The court noted the defendant was entitled to defend the claim, and adverse possession formed part of his defence. Given the intertwining of claim and counterclaim, severance was inappropriate; the just course was to transfer the entire suit to the Environment and Land Court for trial and determination. The application was unopposed.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Magistrate's courts lack jurisdiction to hear and determine suits based on adverse possession under section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act
  • Where a claim and a counterclaim based on adverse possession are intertwined, transfer to a court with jurisdiction serves the interest of justice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Vihiga SPMC ELC Case No 17 of 2019, Florence Medina Ambundo & 2 Others vs Joseph Mukuna Odinga, transferred to the Environment and Land Court for hearing and disposal
  2. 2.No orders as to costs

The bench

#

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

majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction to transfer suits; section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act (jurisdiction over adverse possession claims)

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.

it was decided in Civil Appeal E141 of 2022 that Magistrate's courts had no jurisdiction to hear and determine suits based on adverse possession.
p. 1jurisdiction of magistrates' courts over adverse possession
The suit and the counterclaim are intertwined. The Defendant having been sued was entitled to make his defence against the plaintifis' claim and part of his defence is that he has had adverse possession of the land.
p. 2intertwining of claim and counterclaim
The application is allowed in terms of prayer 1 thereof namely; that Vihiga SPMC ELC Case no 17 of 2019 Florence Medina Ambundo & 2 Others vs Joseph Mukuna Odinga is hereby transferred to this court for hearing and disposal. No orders as to costs.
p. 2final orders - transfer and costs

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Statute misnamed in judgment text as 'Limitation of Sections Act'

minor

Case number of the present application not expressly stated; reference to Civil Appeal E141 of 2022 conflated with the applicant's grounds

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Odinga v Ambundo & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4439 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Civil Appeal E141 of 2022 (referenced); Vihiga PM ELC No 17 of 2019 (the suit transferred). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4439/eng@2025-06-12

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