Ogada (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late Deborah Owade Ogada - Deceased) v Third Engineering Bureau of China City Construction Group Company Ltd & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E015 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 493 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to move a land dispute to Homa Bay, confirming the Oyugis magistrate had full jurisdiction and penalising the applicant with costs.
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 applicant's suit should be transferred from Oyugis Law Courts to the Chief Magistrate's court at Homabay on account of pecuniary jurisdiction
- 2.Costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the Oyugis court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction over the applicant's suit
The application failed: the presiding magistrate was a Senior Principal Magistrate with a pecuniary jurisdiction of Kshs 15,000,000 (later promoted to Chief Magistrate with Kshs 20,000,000), and the applicant's claim that his jurisdiction was Kshs 10,000,000 was unfounded and misleading
The court took judicial notice under Section 60(1)(k) of the Evidence Act of the judicial officer's rank, confirming he was a Senior Principal Magistrate at the material time, contrary to the applicant's averment. It also noted the applicant had filed the suit in that court in 2020 and delayed nearly five years before moving, suggesting forum shopping. Any anticipated award of damages was speculative since damages are discretionary. The application was further overtaken by events after the magistrate's promotion to Chief Magistrate.
Whether speculation about a future damages award justifies transfer
No - the anticipated magnitude of damages is purely speculative since awards are discretionary
The 1st respondent argued, and the court accepted, that pecuniary jurisdiction concerns the value of the subject matter, and that the applicant could not preempt success in an ongoing suit. The court held that anticipating damages exceeding a specific figure was speculative because the quantum of any award lies in the discretion of the trial court.
Legal principles established
#- Jurisdiction is fundamental; without it a court cannot take any step in proceedings
- Pecuniary jurisdiction of magistrates' courts is tied to the rank of the presiding judicial officer as prescribed by Section 7 of the Magistrates' Court Act, and courts take judicial notice of judicial officers' ranks under Section 60(1)(k) of the Evidence Act
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant's prayer to transfer the suit to the Chief Magistrate's court at Homabay is not granted
- 2.The Chief Magistrate, Oyugis Law Courts to prioritize the hearing and conclusion of Oyugis PMC ELC No. 20 of 2020
- 3.The Ruling to be served by the Deputy Registrar of this Court on the Chief Magistrate, Oyugis Law Courts for further action
- 4.The Applicant shall bear the costs of this application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 18(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Transfer of Oyugis PMC ELC No. 20 of 2020 to the Homabay Chief Magistrate's court
The basis that Hon. Ongeri lacked pecuniary jurisdiction was unfounded; he was a Senior Principal Magistrate with jurisdiction of Kshs 15,000,000 and has since been promoted to Chief Magistrate with jurisdiction up to Kshs 20,000,000
Costs
The Applicant shall bear the costs of this application.
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.
Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step.
It was a lie and or misleading for the applicant to lower the position of the said oficer when she, too, ought to have taken judicial notice of that important fact
the applicant's prayer to have the said matter transferred to the Chief Magistrate's court at Homabay is not granted since the Magistrate's Court at Oyugis had, and now much more than speculated, the jurisdiction to hear and determine her matter.
the Chief Magistrate, Oyugis Law Courts should prioritize its hearing and conclusion.
The Applicant shall bear the costs of this application.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment states the suit has been in court for 'almost five full years' but later describes it as 'now getting to six years in the court corridors'
Typographical errors in the judgment, e.g. 'pecuniary hear and determine' (missing 'jurisdiction to') and 'Bereau' for 'Bureau'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ogada (Suing as the Legal Representative of the Estate of the Late Deborah Owade Ogada - Deceased) v Third Engineering Bureau of China City Construction Group Company Ltd & 2 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E015 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 493 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Oyugis PMC ELC No. 20 of 2020 (transfer application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/493/eng@2026-02-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.