Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment

Ndoo & another (Suing as Legal Representatives and Administrators of the Estate of Johnson Kyai Ndoo - Deceased) v Kilonzo & 13 others (Environment and Land Case 23 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 484 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
5 February 2026
616 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 court refused to transfer a long-running land case to a cheaper magistrate's court, saying the property's full value was uncertain and another move would waste time.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Makueni (Obaga J) determined a notice of motion dated 4th September 2025 by the 2nd Defendant seeking withdrawal of the suit from the ELC and its transfer to Makindu Principal Magistrates' Court. The Applicant argued the Emali Town suit property was valued at Kshs.9,500,000/=, within the magistrates' court's monetary jurisdiction, and that witnesses residing at Emali made Makindu convenient. The Plaintiffs opposed, valuing the 2.5-acre property with buildings and godowns at over Kshs.20,000,000/=, citing a 2021 sale of an eighth of an acre at Kshs.800,000/= and roughly 20 such plots, and pointing out the Applicant's own admission of a Kshs.3,000,000/= house on the land. They also decried the application as a delaying tactic in a suit filed in 2012 at Machakos, later transferred to Nairobi and then Makueni. The Applicant filed a valuation report valuing the land alone at Kshs.9,500,000/=, but the improvements were not valued on his counsel's instructions. The court framed one issue: whether the suit should be transferred. It held that the land's value together with the unvalued improvements may well exceed the Kshs.10,000,000/= monetary jurisdiction of the Principal Magistrate (or Kshs.15,000,000/= for a Senior Principal Magistrate), and that transferring a suit certified ready for hearing would cause further delay. The application was dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs/Respondents.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether this suit should be transferred to Makindu Principal Magistrates Court

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit should be transferred to Makindu Principal Magistrates Court

Holding

Application dismissed. The value of the land together with unvalued improvements may exceed the magistrates' court's monetary jurisdiction, and a further transfer would delay a suit pending since 2012 that is certified ready for hearing.

Reasoning

The valuation report placed the land alone at Kshs.9,500,000/=, but the buildings and godowns on the 2.5-acre property were expressly not valued on the Applicant's counsel's instructions. The court could therefore not be satisfied the suit falls within the Principal Magistrate's Kshs.10,000,000/= monetary cap (or Kshs.15,000,000/= for a Senior Principal Magistrate). The suit had already been moved from Machakos to Nairobi to Makueni, delaying hearing; another transfer would occasion further delay contrary to the interest of justice.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where improvements on suit property were not valued, the aggregate value may exceed the monetary jurisdiction of the magistrates' court, defeating a transfer application based on valuation of land alone
  • A transfer application in a long-pending suit certified ready for hearing may be refused in the interest of justice to avoid further delay

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Applicant's application seeking transfer of the suit to Makindu Principal Magistrates Court is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Plaintiffs/Respondents

The bench

#

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

majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction to transfer suits; application under notice of motion dated 4th September 2025 (no statutory provision cited)

Relief refused

#

Transfer of the suit to Makindu Principal Magistrates Court

The value of the land together with improvements may exceed the Principal Magistrate's monetary jurisdiction, and transfer would cause further delay in a suit pending since 2012 already certified ready for hearing

p. 2

Costs

Application dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs/Respondents

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 value of the land together with improvements may well be over the Kshs.10,000,000/= which is the monetary jurisdiction of the principal Magistrate
p. 2Monetary jurisdiction of Principal Magistrates' Court
Even if there is a senior principal magistrate, the monetary jurisdiction is Kshs.15,000,000/=.
p. 2Monetary jurisdiction of Senior Principal Magistrate
To transfer this matter again to Makindu when the same has been certified ready for hearing will cause further delay. In the interest of justice, the Applicants application is for dismissal.
p. 2Final orders - dismissal of transfer application

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Chronological inconsistency: replying affidavit described as sworn 27th October, 2023 while the application it opposes is dated 4th September, 2025

minor

Further affidavit described as sworn 13th October, 2025 but appears after reference to submissions of 6th November, 2025 chronology

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ndoo & another (Suing as Legal Representatives and Administrators of the Estate of Johnson Kyai Ndoo - Deceased) v Kilonzo & 13 others (Environment and Land Case 23 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 484 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/484/eng@2026-02-05

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