Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedKapsabet Chief Magistrates Court E&L Case No. 92 of 2021 (OS) - transfer application by Notice of Motion dated 18th November 2025

Khasi & another v Keino (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E035 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8338 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 November 2025
GOG. M. A. Ongondo
550 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

#

A Kenyan magistrate's court cannot decide adverse possession land claims — only the Environment and Land Court can, so such cases must be transferred there.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a Notice of Motion dated 18th November 2025, the applicants sought transfer to the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet of Kapsabet Chief Magistrates Court E&L Case No. 92 of 2021 (OS), an adverse possession suit, together with leave to amend pleadings and file further documents under Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicants contended that the magistrate's court lacks jurisdiction to entertain suits founded on adverse possession, a jurisdiction exclusively reserved for the Environment and Land Court, and relied on the Court of Appeal's decision in Sugawara v Kiruti (2024) eKLR, which held that Magistrates' Courts lack jurisdiction over adverse possession claims. The respondent, though served by substituted service, did not respond, and Mr. Kiprono for the applicants urged the court to allow the application in the interest of justice. Justice G. M. A. Ongondo noted the trite principle that lack of jurisdiction renders a court's decision void, citing Republic v Karisa Chengo & 2 others (2017) eKLR. Guided by Section 3 of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015, sections 3, 3A and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act and Articles 50(1) and 159(2)(b) of the Constitution on the ends of justice, the court found the application firm, cogent and meritorious. The application was allowed in terms of the transfer and leave-to-amend prayers, with costs in the cause.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the Environment and Land Court should transfer to itself the lower court file, Kapsabet CM E&L Case No. 92 of 2021 (OS), for trial and final disposal on merits
  2. 2.Whether the magistrate's court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine adverse possession claims
  3. 3.Whether the applicants should be granted leave to amend pleadings and file further documents under Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the magistrate's court has jurisdiction over adverse possession claims

Holding

The magistrate's court lacks jurisdiction over adverse possession claims; such claims fall exclusively within the Environment and Land Court's jurisdiction, justifying transfer of the file to the ELC.

Reasoning

The court relied on the Court of Appeal's decision in Sugawara v Kiruti, which held conclusively that Magistrates' Courts lack jurisdiction over adverse possession claims. It further noted the trite principle that lack of jurisdiction renders a court's decision void, per Republic v Karisa Chengo. Guided by the Environment and Land Court Act, the Civil Procedure Act and Articles 50(1) and 159(2)(b) of the Constitution on the ends of justice, the court found the transfer application merited.

02

Whether the application for transfer and leave to amend should be allowed

Holding

The application dated 18th November 2025 was allowed in terms of the transfer and leave-to-amend prayers, with costs in the cause.

Reasoning

The application was unopposed, the Respondent having been served by substituted service and filing no response. Counsel for the applicants urged the court to allow the application in the interest of justice. Invoking Section 3 of the Environment and Land Court Act, sections 3, 3A and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act and Articles 50(1) and 159(2)(b) of the Constitution, the judge found the application 'firm, cogent and meritorious' and allowed it.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Magistrates' Courts lack jurisdiction to hear and determine claims founded on adverse possession; such jurisdiction is reserved for the Environment and Land Court.
  • Lack of jurisdiction renders a court's decision void.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 18th November 2025 allowed in terms of orders (a) and (b) sought, i.e. transfer of Kapsabet CM E&L Case No. 92 of 2021 (OS) to the Environment and Land Court for trial and final disposal on merits
  2. 2.Leave granted to the applicants to amend their pleadings and file further documents in compliance with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, with corresponding leave to the Respondent if so desired
  3. 3.Costs in the cause
  4. 4.It is so ordered

The bench

#

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

GO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3 of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015; sections 3, 3A and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21); Articles 50(1) and 159(2)(b) 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.

That the magistrate's court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine suits founded upon adverse possession which jurisdiction is exclusively reserved for the Environment and Land Court.
p. 1Jurisdiction over adverse possession claims
It is trite law that lack of jurisdiction renders a court's decision void
p. 2Consequences of want of jurisdiction
So, I find the application firm, cogent and meritorious.
p. 2Court's conclusion on the application
A fortiori, the instant application dated 18th November 2025, is hereby allowed in terms of orders 3 and 4 sought therein as stated in paragraph 1 (a) and (b) hereinabove with costs in the cause.
p. 2Final orders / disposition

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The Environment and Land Court Act is referred to as '2015 (2011)' in the judgment, an internally inconsistent citation.

minor

The respondent is not named in the extracted judgment text, though the underlying suit parties are given.

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (7)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Khasi & another v Keino (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E035 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8338 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Kapsabet Chief Magistrates Court E&L Case No. 92 of 2021 (OS) - transfer application by Notice of Motion dated 18th November 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8338/eng@2025-11-26

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