Obande & 2 others v Ronga (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E058 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3283 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that only it can decide adverse possession land claims, and struck out court documents filed by a lawyer before formally coming on record.
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 Respondent's Replying Affidavit, submissions and List of Authorities filed before a Notice of Appointment were irregularly on record and should be struck out
- 2.Whether the suit Oyugis ELC E064 of 2024, in which a Defence and Counterclaim raising adverse possession was filed, should be transferred from the Senior Principal Magistrate's court to the ELC, which alone has original jurisdiction over adverse possession claims under Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act
Key legal issues
#Irregular filing of documents by unappointed counsel
The Respondent's Replying Affidavit, submissions and list of authorities were filed by a stranger and struck out; Article 159(2)(d) cannot cure such a fundamental defect.
The firm of Alphonse Barrack and Associates filed documents before the Notice of Appointment was filed. Representation before the court is a material fact going to the root of pleadings, not a mere technicality, and per the Salat decision documents filed without leave cannot be regularised after the fact. No fresh documents were filed after appointment.
Jurisdiction over adverse possession claims and transfer of the suit
Post-Sugawara v Kiruti, only the ELC has original jurisdiction under Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act; the Oyugis suit with its adverse possession counterclaim was transferred to the ELC in the interests of justice.
The court traced the historical split of authority on magistrates' jurisdiction over adverse possession, resolved since the Court of Appeal's Sugawara v Kiruti decision of 11 October 2024. Although parties cannot confer jurisdiction, the counterclaim was filed before that clarification and the Plaintiff had not objected, so justice warranted transfer rather than shutting the parties out.
Legal principles established
#- Only the ELC has original jurisdiction to hear and determine adverse possession claims under Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act, per Sugawara v Kiruti.
- Documents filed by a stranger before a Notice of Appointment cannot be regularised retroactively.
- A counterclaim is a cross-suit but gives rise to one judgment with the main suit.
Court orders
#- 1.The Respondent's Replying Affidavit, written submissions and List of Authorities filed before appointment of counsel are struck out as irregularly filed
- 2.Oyugis ELC E064 of 2024 Ruth Atieno Ronga vs Susan Moraa Obande and 2 others is transferred to this Court for hearing and determination
- 3.Costs of the application shall be in the cause
- 4.The file is closed forthwith
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 13(1)(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act; Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution; Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
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.
Accordingly, I order that Oyugis ELC E064 of 2024 Ruth Atieno Ronga vs Susan Moraa Obande and 2 others be transferred to this Court for hearing and determination.
The Costs of this application shall be in the cause. This file is hereby closed forthwith.
from the 11th October 2024 the position is now clear, that Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act provides that only the ELC has the original jurisdiction to hear and determine adverse possession claims.
They were filed by a stranger and their validity or regularity on the record could not be salvaged retrogressively by the Notice of Appointment filed afterwards.
Issues in the judgment
#Header states 'RULING D.O.D 7.5.2026' while grounds refer to a lower court mention 'on 2nd December 2023 (sic)' although the application is dated 19th November 2025 - an apparent date inconsistency.
The motion cites 'Section 3A, Civil Procedure Rules (sic)' when Section 3A is of the Civil Procedure Act.
Application was said to be supported by an affidavit of counsel Cephas Agure but was actually supported by the 1st Applicant's affidavit.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Obande & 2 others v Ronga (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E058 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3283 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Homa Bay ELC Misc Application No. E058 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3283/eng@2026-05-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.