Jombo (Suing on Behalf of Samwel Jombo Odida) & another v South Nyanza Sugar Company Limited (Environment and Land Appeal E026 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 4695 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a sugarcane payment appeal, ruling that disputes about money, not land, belong in other courts.
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 Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the appeal
- 2.Whether the appeal is merited
- 3.Who should bear the cost of the appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction over an appeal whose predominant claim is to restrain payment of money by a sugar company to a third party
The Court lacks jurisdiction as the claim against the Respondent is a purely commercial/monetary dispute unrelated to use, occupation of or title to land.
Although the underlying grievance involved alleged trespass on the suit parcel by Jack Meta Okumu, the claim against the Respondent concerned only an injunction restraining payment of sugarcane proceeds, founded on privity of contract between the Respondent and the deliverer. The claim against the Respondent was severable from the trespass claim and did not touch land. The appeal, filed solely against the Respondent, therefore fell outside Article 162(2)(b).
Whether jurisdiction can be raised for the first time on appeal where it was not raised in the trial court
Yes; the jurisdictional question may be raised at any stage, even on appeal, and the Court raised it of its own motion.
The Respondent argued the appeal did not raise land issues within Article 162. The Appellants did not submit on jurisdiction. Relying on Kenya Ports Authority v Modern Holdings and Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S', the Court held jurisdiction is everything, may be raised at any time and by the Court itself, and must be determined before the merits.
Whether the claims against Jack Meta Okumu and the Respondent were intertwined
They were not; the claim against the Respondent could be determined separately, and the appeal was filed only against the Respondent.
The Respondent took no part in the alleged trespass, its relationship with the 1st Defendant being a purely contractual one of buying and paying for delivered cane. Since the appeal was filed solely against the Respondent, the trespass question—which alone would have grounded ELC jurisdiction—was not before the Court.
Legal principles established
#- A court must satisfy itself of jurisdiction before anything else and cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction not conferred by law
- The issue of jurisdiction may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, even for the first time on appeal
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is struck out
- 2.Costs of the appeal to the Respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrate's Court at Migori (Principal Magistrate)
- ELC Case No. 14 of 2019
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#Allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and orders of the trial Principal Magistrate dated 18th October 2022
The Court lacks jurisdiction, the predominant issue being a monetary claim against the Respondent over payment of sugarcane proceeds, not a land dispute
Costs of the appeal to the Appellants
Appeal struck out with costs to the Respondent
Costs
Costs of the appeal awarded to the Respondent.
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.
Given the circumstances of this case, it is my view that this Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine this appeal. The trial Court was right in refusing the injunction but did not have jurisdiction to determine that issue of payment. The appeal is therefore struck with costs to the Respondent.
Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a Court has no power to make one more step.
We have stressed that jurisdiction is such a fundamental matter that it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings and even on appeal, though it is always prudent to raise it as soon as the occasion arises.
A Court's jurisdiction flows from either the constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a Court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the constitution or other written law.
Issues in the judgment
#The record title and party names are not fully stated; the judgment opens with 'The Appellants' without naming them, and they are identified only through the pleadings
Typographical errors in the operative order and inconsistent references to the Respondent (2nd Defendant/Respondent; 'Sony Sugar Co. Ltd' vs 'South Nyanza Sugar Co. Ltd')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jombo (Suing on Behalf of Samwel Jombo Odida) & another v South Nyanza Sugar Company Limited (Environment and Land Appeal E026 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 4695 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Appeal against the decision in ELC Case No. 14 of 2019, Migori (Memorandum of Appeal dated 24th October, 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4695/eng@2025-06-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.