Nyaga v Nyingi (Environment and Land Case E051 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4735 (KLR)

a) An order of eviction against the Defendant from the suit property. b) An order for demolition of the unlawful structures on the suit property. c) A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant from entering or interfering with a suit property. d) An order for mesne profits and/or damages for trespass. e) Officer in charge of Witeithie Police Post to facilitate the eviction. f) Costs of this suit. The cause of this suit together with interest thereon at such rate and for such period of time as this honorable Court may deem just and fit to grant. 4. Alongside the Plaint the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion Application of even date seeking injunctive orders. 5. Before the application was heard, Counsel for the Plaintiff sought to have the matter transferred to the Chief Magistrate’s Court. 6. This Ruling is in respect of the oral application made by the Advocates for the Plaintiff. 7. On pecuniary jurisdiction of Judicial Officers, Section 7 of the Magistrates’ Court Act provides as follows: “1. A Magistrate's Court shall have and exercise such jurisdiction and powers in proceedings of a civil nature in which the value of the subject matter does not exceedELCLC NO. E051 OF 2026 2|Page

page 2 of 6

a) twenty million shillings, where the Court is presided over by a Chief Magistrate; b) fifteen million shillings, where the Court is presided over by a Senior Principal Magistrate; c) ten million shillings, where the Court is presided over by a Principal Magistrate; d) seven million shillings, where the Court is presided over by a Senior Resident Magistrate; or e) five million shillings, where the Court is presided over by a Resident Magistrate. 2. The Chief Justice may from time to time, by notice in the Gazette, revise the pecuniary limits of jurisdiction set out in subsection (1), taking into account inflation and change in prevailing economic conditions.” 8. It is instructive to note that this Court which is of equal status as the High Court derives its jurisdiction from Article 162(2)(b) and 3 of the Constitution of Kenya which establishes the Court through the statute that was enacted to actualize it, namely, the Environment and Land Court Act. Specifically, Section 13 of the Act give the jurisdiction of this Court. 9. Sub Articles 162(2)(b) and 3 provide that; ELCLC NO. E051 OF 2026 3|Page

page 3 of 6

“2. Parliament shall establish Courts with the status of the High Court to hear and use and determine disputes relating to— b) the environment and the occupation of, and title to, land. 3. Parliament shall determine the jurisdiction and functions of the Courts contemplated in clause (2).” 10. Parliament then enacted the Act establishing this Court and by virtue of Section 13(1) gave it the jurisdiction it required. The provision reads that; “The Court shall have original and appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine all disputes in accordance with Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and with the provisions of this Act or any other law applicable in Kenya relating to environment and land.” 11. This Court has underlined the phrase “all disputes” in the above provision to emphasize that this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine all and any dispute in so far as it is envisaged under the two provisions above, irrespective of the pecuniary jurisdiction. It means that the law does not prohibit the ELC from handling any dispute whose value can even be zero (0) and be as high as billions or trillions as long as it relates to the environment and land. ELCLC NO. E051 OF 2026 4|Page

page 4 of 6

Only Subordinate Courts have their pecuniary jurisdiction(s) limited by law. 12. Thus, regarding the oral application on jurisdiction raised herein, this Court finds it be proper. It is good order and advisable for a dispute over certain subject to be instituted in a Court of the lowest pecuniary jurisdiction. This does not however divest this Court with more pecuniary jurisdiction than that lower Court to handle or determine the dispute. 13. The upshot is that the oral application is merited, however, the Plaintiff has not disclosed the location of the suit property to enable a jurisdictional transfer. 14. This Court has carefully considered the pleadings herein, particularly the Plaint. Indeed, the Plaint does not disclose the value of the parcel known as Weteithie Gwaka Investment Limited Plot No. 786, Farm No. “3A”. It is therefore not clear how the Plaintiff came to the realization of the plot’s value. 15. The Defendant in opposition to the oral application moved the Court to have the matter heard in this Court. As I have said this Court is not divest of pecuniary jurisdiction since Article 162 (b) bestows original jurisdiction on the Court. 16. In view of the foregoing, I do not see the use of transferring this matter to a lower Court since the value ELCLC NO. E051 OF 2026 5|Page

page 5 of 6

mentioned by the Plaintiff has not been provided and also this Court is bestowed with original jurisdiction. 17. The oral application is dismissed. Orders Accordingly. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT THIKA VIA VIDEOLINK THIS 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2026. ……………………… MOGENI J JUDGE In the presence of: Mr. Mburu for the Plaintiff/Applicant Defendant/Respondent - Absent Mr. Melita - Court Assistant ……………………… MOGENI J JUDGE ELCLC NO. E051 OF 2026 6|Page

page 6 of 6