Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2017] KEELC 165 (KLR)

Julius K Kirui v Veronica Chelangat Kibanga [2017] KEELC 165 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya (Environment and Land Court Division)
8 December 2017
869 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court refused to undo a land case transfer, confirming magistrates' courts can now hear land disputes even when the original transfer order was flawed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant moved the court by Notice of Motion under Order 20 Rule 2, Order 45 Rule 2, Order 51 Rule 1 and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act seeking review and/or setting aside of an order made by Justice Sila Munyao on 3rd November 2016 transferring Kericho CMCC No. 20 of 2016 to the Kericho Environment and Land Court. The applicant deponed that on 23rd November 2016 the matter was listed only for mention to confirm the outcome of Malindi High Court Petition No. 3 of 2016 concerning magistrates' courts' jurisdiction over land and environment matters, yet the court proceeded to determine the transfer application in her absence after counsel holding brief indicated no objection, contrary to her instructions to oppose the transfer for want of jurisdiction. The respondent opposed, maintaining the transfer order was properly made. The court reviewed the record and accepted that the matter was indeed set for mention, invoking the Evans v Esso principle that substantive issues should not be determined on a mention date absent agreement. However, applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Law Society of Kenya Nairobi Branch v Malindi Law Society, the court held that magistrates' courts may be conferred jurisdiction over land and environment disputes, rendering the applicant's objection no longer valid. The application was dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an order made on a mention date when the matter was listed for mention only should be reviewed

Holding

Although the court ought not to have determined the substantive transfer application on a mention date without the parties' agreement, review is refused because the underlying legal objection has been overtaken by the change in jurisprudence confirming magistrates' courts' jurisdiction over land and environment disputes.

Reasoning

The court reviewed the proceedings of 23rd November 2016 and found the matter was listed for mention only; the transfer order arose after counsel holding brief erroneously stated no objection. The court accepted the Evans v Esso principle that mention dates should not be used to determine substantive issues. However, the applicant's objection rested on the argument that a suit filed in a court without jurisdiction cannot be transferred, a position negated by the Law Society of Kenya v Malindi Law Society decision. Accordingly, invoking section 3A, the court declined review as it would not serve the ends of justice.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a matter is fixed for mention, the court ought not to determine the substantive issues unless the parties agree
  • Parliament may confer jurisdiction on magistrates' courts to hear and determine cases relating to land and environment

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application for review of the order of Justice Sila Munyao dated 3rd November 2016 is declined
  2. 2.Each party shall bear its own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Act Cap 21section 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 20 Rule 2
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rule 2
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1

Cases cited (2)

  • Evans V Esso Kenya Limited
    Civil Appeal No 13 of 1995
  • The Law Society of Kenya Nairobi Branch V Malindi Law Society & 6 Others
    (2017) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21; Order 20 Rule 2, Order 45 Rule 2, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Julius K Kirui v Veronica Chelangat Kibanga [2017] KEELC 165 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/165/eng@2017-12-08

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