Okiya Omtatah Okoiti & another v Afrison Export Limited & 11 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal voided a Ksh 2.4 billion land judgment because the High Court lacked jurisdiction over the land dispute after November 2012.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to conclude the land dispute after the establishment of the Environment and Land Court
The High Court lost jurisdiction after 9th November 2012 because hearing of the O.S. had not commenced by the date of the Chief Justice's Practice Directions; the judgment and subsequent consent order are a nullity.
Article 162(2)(b) mandated establishment of the ELC, which commenced on 30th August 2011, with judges appointed on 3rd October 2012. The Practice Directions allowed part-heard land matters to continue in the High Court but required matters not yet set down for hearing to be transferred. The record showed hearing had not commenced by 18th December 2012, so the trial court should have transferred the matter. Jurisdiction cannot be granted by consent.
Whether objections to filing of the record of appeal out of time were still open to the respondents
No; the respondents failed to object within the thirty-day window under the proviso to Rule 84 and had already lost a similar application before a differently constituted bench.
Rule 84 requires a striking-out application to be brought within thirty days of service of the notice or record of appeal. The respondents did not object within that period, and a prior notice of motion by the 1st and 2nd respondents on the same ground had been dismissed because it was itself out of time. Remounting the challenge was impermissible.
Whether the appeal was invalid for impugning a decree that had been varied by consent
No invalidity arose; the appeal properly targets the decision of 12th February 2013, though attacking the consent order of 8th April 2013 not cited in the notice of appeal was impermissible.
A notice of appeal alerts affected parties of the decision sought to be appealed; a notice evincing a desire to appeal one decision cannot be used to mount an appeal against another. The memorandum of appeal made clear the target was the 12th February 2013 decision. In any event the outcome would not differ.
Whether the ELC Petition No. 1488 of 2016 rendered this appeal moot or barred by res judicata
No; the ELC did not and could not re-determine the issues raised before the High Court, so the decision in the ELC Petition did not render this appeal moot.
The ELC expressly declined to entertain contestation of ownership adjudged in HCCC No. 617 of 2012 absent a prayer to set aside that judgment, treating further litigation of ownership as res judicata. Its approach left the issues in this appeal intact.
Legal principles established
#- Where an environment and land matter filed in the High Court before the Practice Directions of 9th November 2012 had not commenced hearing by that date, the High Court lost jurisdiction and the matter ought to have been transferred to the Environment and Land Court; proceedings conducted thereafter are a nullity.
- Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent of the parties.
- An objection that an essential step in an appeal was not taken within the prescribed time must be brought within thirty days of service of the notice or record of appeal.
- A question going to the jurisdiction of the trial court is so important that it may be raised for the first time on appeal.
Court orders
#- 1.Appeal allowed
- 2.All proceedings after 9th November 2012, including the judgment of 12th February 2013 and the consent order of 8th April 2013, declared a nullity
- 3.The judgment and consent order set aside
- 4.Matter remitted to the Environment and Land Court for hearing and determination
- 5.Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal
- On appeal from
- High Court of Kenya at Nairobi
- Civil Case No. 617 of 2012
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appeal under Rule 75(1) of the Court of Appeal Rules, 2010 by persons not party to the suit, in public interest, with extension of time granted
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Okiya Omtatah Okoiti & another v Afrison Export Limited & 11 others", Case Analysis (2026). Civil Appeal No. 86 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1778/eng@2026-09-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.