Tanui v Sitienei & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E030 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7609 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled a land dispute filed in the wrong court should be transferred to the correct court, not thrown out entirely.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether there is merit in the application for transfer of Kabiyet CMELC No. E006 of 2025 to the Chief Magistrate's Court at Kapsabet
- 2.What orders are appropriate for the ends of justice
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit should be transferred from Kabiyet Magistrate's Court to Kapsabet Chief Magistrate's Court
The application was allowed; the suit land lies within Kapsabet's jurisdiction and the 2nd Respondent resides at Chepterit, closer to Kapsabet, so transfer serves the ends of justice and access to justice.
The court considered sections 12 to 18 of the CPA on place of suing and transfer, sections 7 and 9 of the Magistrates' Courts Act on civil and land jurisdiction, and took judicial notice of geographical boundaries under sections 59 and 60 of the Evidence Act. Given the location of Nandi/Kokwet/1896 at Mosoriot and the 2nd Respondent's residence at Chepterit, Kapsabet was the more convenient forum in the spirit of Article 48 access to justice.
Whether the suit filed at Kabiyet was a nullity incapable of transfer
The suit discloses a reasonable cause of action and is not hopeless or weak; it should not be struck out but transferred.
The 2nd Respondent argued the suit was incompetent and a nullity since Kabiyet lacked territorial jurisdiction, so nothing could be transferred. The court, subscribing to D.T Dobie v Muchina and Order 6 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules, held that no suit should be summarily dismissed unless plainly hopeless and incurable by amendment, and found the Kabiyet suit discloses a cause of action.
Legal principles established
#- Lack of jurisdiction renders a court's proceedings void
- No suit ought to be summarily dismissed unless it is plainly hopeless and beyond redemption by amendment
- The right to be heard is fundamental and permeates the entire justice system
Court orders
#- 1.Kabiyet CMELC No. E006 of 2025, Emily Cherotich Sitienei v Joseph Kiprono Sitienei and Benjamin Kiptatus Kemboi transferred to the Chief Magistrate's Court at Kapsabet for hearing and final determination
- 2.Upon transfer, the matter to be mentioned before the Chief Magistrate's Court at Kapsabet before the lapse of 30 days for purposes of directions
- 3.Costs to be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 15 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21); Article 48, 50(1) and 25(c) 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.
Wherefore, the application dated 21st October 2025 is hereby allowed in terms of prayers 2, 3 and 4 therein as set out in paragraph 1 (b) (c) and (d) hereinabove.
It is so ordered.
Plainly, the suit pending at Kabiyet Magistrate’s Court discloses a cause of action and it is neither hopeless nor weak to be struck out or dismissed.
due to the location of the suit land and that the 2nd Respondent resides at Chepterit which is closer to Kapsabet than Kabiyet, the suit shall be heard and determined before Kapsabet Chief Magistrates’ Court
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: the ruling of the Kabiyet Magistrate's Court is dated 16th October 2025 elsewhere but counsel is recorded as referring to a ruling delivered on 16th October 2015
Inconsistent rendering of the 2nd Respondent's name: 'Benjamin Kiptatus Kemboi' in prayer (b) versus 'Benjamin Kiptarus Kemboi' in the grounds and title
Statutory citation anomaly: the Environment and Land Court Act 2015 is cited as '2015 (2011)'
Paragraph 13 states the suit land is within the jurisdiction of 'both Kabiyet' although the preliminary objection had upheld lack of Kabiyet territorial jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tanui v Sitienei & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E030 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7609 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kapsabet ELC Case (Notice of Motion dated 21st October 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7609/eng@2025-11-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.