Olajo & another v Oyugi (Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3303 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed that only it, not magistrates' courts, can decide adverse possession land claims, so an Oyugis suit was transferred.
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 prayer for transfer of Oyugis SPMC ELC Case No. 40 of 2022 to the Environment and Land Court at Homabay is merited
- 2.Whether the Magistrate's Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the counterclaim for adverse possession
- 3.Who to bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Magistrate's Court over adverse possession claims
The Magistrate's Court lacks jurisdiction to determine the counterclaim for adverse possession; such claims fall within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act.
The court traced the historic split of authority among subordinate and superior courts on whether magistrates' courts could entertain adverse possession claims. Relying on the plain textual reading of Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act and the Court of Appeal decision in Sugawara v Kiruti delivered on 11 October 2024, the court held that the confusion is now settled: only the ELC has original jurisdiction over adverse possession claims.
Whether a defendant may seek transfer of the whole suit on the strength of a counterclaim filed in a court lacking jurisdiction
Yes. The defendant can be excused for filing the counterclaim in the lower court because it was filed before the Sugawara decision clarified the jurisdictional position; the proper remedy is transfer of the suit to the ELC.
The court acknowledged that counterclaims are treated as separate suits but are intertwined with the plaintiff's claim. Since the counterclaim was filed in 2022, before the Court of Appeal's clarifying decision in Sugawara v Kiruti (11 October 2024), the applicant could not be faulted. Given that only one final judgment can be pronounced on the claim and counterclaim, the entire suit was transferred to the ELC.
Legal principles established
#- Pursuant to Section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act, only the Environment and Land Court has original jurisdiction to hear and determine adverse possession claims.
- A counterclaim, while amounting to a cross-suit, does not give rise to a separate stand-alone second judgment and cannot be a pleading independent of a defence.
- A counterclaim may nevertheless proceed even where the plaintiff's suit is stayed, discontinued or dismissed, per Order 7 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Court orders
#- 1.Oyugis Magistrate Court SPMC ELC Case No. 40 of 2022 be transferred to the Environment and Land Court at Homabay for hearing and determination
- 2.The order be served in the trial Court within fourteen days for purposes of transfer of that suit to this court
- 3.There shall be no order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Costs of the application
The court declined to award costs to either party, making no order as to costs.
Costs
There shall be no order 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.
It therefore orders that Oyugis Magistrate Court SPMC ELC Case No. 40 of 2022 be transferred to this Court for hearing and determination. This order be served in the trial Court in fourteen days for purposes of transfer of that suit to this court.
There shall be no order as to costs. This file is closed.
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.
The presence of a counterclaim in a suit, while essentially amounting to a cross-suit, does not give rise to a separate, stand-alone second judgment. A counterclaim never stands on its own and cannot be a pleading independent of a defence.
Issues in the judgment
#Multiple typographical errors in the judgment text suggesting poor transcription/OCR quality.
Date inconsistency: the applicant's supporting affidavit is sworn 19th November 2025, while the respondent's replying affidavit is sworn 3rd March 2026, both predating the ruling of 30th April 2026; the suit was filed in 2022, which is consistent.
The judgment is labelled 'RULING' rather than 'JUDGMENT' in the closing passage.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Olajo & another v Oyugi (Miscellaneous Application E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3303 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Miscellaneous Application (Oyugis SPMC ELC Case No. 40 of 2022 - transfer application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3303/eng@2026-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.