Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedELC Case No. E036 of 2024 (Transfer Application dated 3/11/2025)· [2026] KEELC 2782 (KLR)

Oyuko & 2 others v Onyando (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E032 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2782 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
12 May 2026
2,977 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court moved a Bondo land case to Siaya because the magistrate would have to review a colleague's earlier judgment on the same land.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants moved the Environment and Land Court at Siaya by Notice of Motion dated 3/11/2025 seeking transfer of Bondo MCELC Case No. E036 of 2024 (Simelia Anyango Onyando v Zakayo Ayuko & Moses Ochieng Auma) from Bondo Law Courts to the ELC, Siaya. They premised the application on Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act, arguing that the same court had previously, and allegedly secretly, determined Bondo MCELC E032 of 2023 in the plaintiff's favour ex parte on the same parcels (South Sakwa/Barkowino/9706 & 9707), creating apprehension of bias and a prospect of the magistrate sitting in appeal over a brother magistrate's decision. The respondent, the plaintiff in E036 of 2024, did not oppose transfer to a competent court but contended that Bondo magistrates were not shown to be incapable of objective hearing, and that transfer was an attempt to have the court sit on appeal against the E032 judgment. She further noted the E032 proceedings only concerned a threat to cancel her title, and that the applicants were not parties thereto. The Interested Party (the Land Registrar) argued the reallocation was an internal case-management measure under Article 159(2). Dena J held the suit was competent before the CM Court, and that a prior judgment on the same land did not oust jurisdiction, the dispute remaining subject to res judicata. However, because the plaintiff intended to rely on the earlier judgment as evidence, the court found justification for transfer and allowed the application, with costs to abide the main hearing, expressly preserving any res judicata plea.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the transfer application was justified despite the trial court's apparent jurisdiction over the dispute

Holding

The application was allowed because part of the plaintiff's intended evidence was the prior judgment in MCELC E032 of 2023, creating discomfort for the CM court in reviewing that piece of evidence.

Reasoning

The court found the suit competent before the CM Court at Bondo and rejected the contention that the prior ex parte judgment on the same land barred the magistrate from entertaining the ownership dispute, which remained subject to res judicata. However, the plaintiff intended to rely on the earlier judgment as evidence, and the reply to the defence to the counter-claim alluded to its finality. This created discomfort for the CM court in reviewing that specific piece of evidence, justifying transfer to the ELC, Siaya.

p. 6
02

Whether allegations that the earlier suit was secretly prosecuted ex parte warranted transfer

Holding

Such allegations were not a proper basis for the transfer application and had to be pursued in the underlying proceedings or on appeal.

Reasoning

The court observed that while the applicants alleged the judgment in E032 of 2023 was secretly obtained, that complaint was outside the scope of a transfer application. Proper remedies lay in an application within those proceedings or an appeal to the High Court. The transfer was therefore granted on the evidence-comfort ground, not on the bias or secrecy allegations.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • The High Court (and a court of equal status such as the ELC) may transfer a suit pending in a subordinate court directly to another competent subordinate court without first withdrawing it to itself.
  • The fact that a court previously delivered a judgment concerning the same land does not deprive that court of jurisdiction over a different dispute on the same property; such dispute remains subject to res judicata.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 3/11/2025 is allowed
  2. 2.ELC CASE NO E036 OF 2024 Simela Anyango Onyango v Zakayo Ayuko & Moses Ochieng Auma is transferred from Bondo Law Courts to the Environment and Land Court, Siaya for hearing and determination
  3. 3.Costs shall abide the outcome of the main hearing
  4. 4.The decision to transfer the matter shall not serve as a bar for any party to apply on the plea of res judicata

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 18
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 17
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)(b) and (d)
  • Magistrates' Courts Act

Cases cited (3)

  • Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 others
    [2012] eKLR
  • Owners of the Motor vessel "Lilian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    [1989] KLR
  • Okoiti & 3 others v Anne Waiguru & 5 others
    [2021] KLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Oyuko & 2 others v Onyando (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E032 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2782 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. E036 of 2024 (Transfer Application dated 3/11/2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2782/eng@2026-05-12

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