Adingo v Mudoga & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E027 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 141 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court can pull related land cases out of the Magistrate's Court so all disputes over the same parcel are decided together.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Court has the jurisdiction and power to transfer the CM's Court suit as sought in the application
- 2.Whether there is merit in the application and the appropriate orders to issue for the ends of justice
Key legal issues
#Whether the ELC has power to transfer a suit from the Magistrate's Court to itself where the same subject land is in issue in three related suits
The application was allowed; the court found the transfer necessary for the ends of justice given the common subject matter (land parcel NANDI/SEREM/271) and the overlapping parties across the three suits.
The court noted that the subject matter in the CM's court suit and the two ELC suits is the same parcel of land, NANDI/SEREM/271, and that the applicant is a constant party across the trio of suits. Relying on the overriding objective under sections 3 and 19(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act and section 18(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and on the parties' rights of access to justice and a fair hearing under Articles 48, 50(1), 25(c) and 159(2)(b) of the Constitution, the court held that the suits ought to be heard together without delay.
The respondents' objection that the subordinate court had jurisdiction under section 9 of the Magistrates' Courts Act and that a court cannot transfer a suit from a court with jurisdiction to one without
The grounds of opposition failed; the court prioritised the ends of justice and the constitutional imperative that justice shall not be delayed.
The respondents argued that subordinate courts have jurisdiction over land disputes within their pecuniary jurisdiction under section 9 of the Magistrates' Courts Act and that under section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act transfer can only move a suit from a court without jurisdiction to one with jurisdiction. The court did not accept these objections, compressing the issues to merit and the ends of justice, and found the transfer application cogent and meritorious given the identical subject matter and overlapping parties in the three suits.
Legal principles established
#- Where the same subject matter is pending before the subordinate court and the ELC, the suits ought to be heard by the ELC without delay for the ends of justice.
Court orders
#- 1.Suit No. Kapsabet CMELC No. E055 of 2023, Batson Mudashi Adingo v William Mudoga & Henry Aswani Agosa, transferred from the Chief Magistrate's Court, Kapsabet, to the Environment & Land Court at Kapsabet for hearing and final determination
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21); section 18(1) of the Civil Procedure Act; sections 3 and 19(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011 (2015)
Relief refused
#Costs of the application
The court allowed the transfer but declined to award costs, making no orders as to costs.
Costs
No orders as to costs
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.
the application dated 15th September 2025 is hereby allowed in terms of the principal prayer for the transfer of suit as set out in paragraph 1 (a) hereinabove with no orders as to costs.
It is established law that the right to be heard is fundamental and permeates our entire justice system
the CM’s Court suit, the ELC 1st and 2nd suits ought to be heard without delay by this court bearing in mind section 3 of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015 (2011) for the ends of justice.
Undoubtedly the parties in the trio suits have the right of access to justice as provided for under Article 48 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently dates the Environment and Land Court Act, referring to it variously as the 'Environment and Land Court 2015 (2011)' and 'Environment and Land Court Act 2015 (2011)'.
The heading/caption of the ruling's case number is not clearly stated in the extracted text; the matter is identified only through the application and related suits.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Adingo v Mudoga & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E027 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 141 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Kapsabet ELCOS No. E023 of 2023 (with related Kapsabet CMELC No. E055 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/141/eng@2026-01-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.