Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedApplication dated 2nd October 2020 (arising from Kakamega High Court Land and Environment Case No. 177 of 2015 (OS) / Mumias MCLE No. 122 of 2018)· [2020] KEELC 364 (KLR)

Michael Patrick Inganga & 4 others v Mustafa A. Juma & 7 other [2020] KEELC 364 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
8 December 2020
NMN.A. Matheka
751 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

#

Kenyan magistrates' courts can hear adverse possession claims, so land cases cannot be moved to the High Court or Environment and Land Court just to avoid them.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an application dated 2nd October 2020, brought under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking the transfer of Mumias MCLE No. 122 of 2018 from Mumias Law Courts to the Land and Environment Court at Kakamega on the ground that the Mumias court lacked jurisdiction. The applicants, who attached the affidavit of Michael Patrick Inganga Olunga, explained that the case was an originating summons originally filed as Kakamega High Court Land and Environment Case No. 177 of 2015, which had been transferred to Mumias Law Courts for hearing and determination. They asserted that when the case was mentioned at Mumias, the court noted it lacked jurisdiction and advised the parties to move the Land and Environment Court for re-transfer to the High Court at Kakamega, contending that the case could not otherwise be heard and determined and that the transfer was in the interest of justice. The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the applicants had taken no action on their 2015 suit for three years; that the suit land fell within the territorial jurisdiction of Mumias Principal Magistrate's Court; that the applicants' advocate had raised jurisdiction in November 2018 but never moved the High Court for two years thereafter; that the application was an abuse of court process designed to defeat a pending review application; and that the applicants had abandoned this suit in favour of proceedings in Succession Cause No. 26 of 1999 seeking revocation of the grant and cancellation of the titles. Justice N.A. Matheka adopted the holding in Patrick Ndegwa Munyua v Benjamin Kiiru Mwangi & Another (2020) eKLR, that magistrates' courts duly gazetted under Section 26(3) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011, with requisite pecuniary jurisdiction, have jurisdiction over adverse possession claims. The application was accordingly dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of magistrates' courts over adverse possession claims

Holding

Magistrates' courts, so long as presided over by a magistrate duly gazetted under Section 26(3) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011 and having the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction, have jurisdiction and power to handle claims of adverse possession

Reasoning

The court adopted the reasoning in Patrick Ndegwa Munyua v Benjamin Kiiru Mwangi & Another, which grounded magistrates' jurisdiction over adverse possession claims in the express provisions of Sections 26(3) and (4) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011 and Section 9(a) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 2015, read together with constitutional principles of devolution, access to services and access to justice for all persons.

p. 2
02

Whether the application to transfer Mumias MCLE No. 122 of 2018 to the Land and Environment Court at Kakamega was merited

Holding

The application was not merited because the Mumias court possesses the requisite jurisdiction

Reasoning

Having found that duly gazetted magistrates' courts can entertain adverse possession claims, the court concluded that the applicant's premise for transfer - that the Mumias court lacked jurisdiction - failed. The application was therefore dismissed, with the court declining to disturb the matter's continued hearing at Mumias.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Magistrates' courts presided over by a magistrate duly gazetted under Section 26(3) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011 and with the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction have jurisdiction and power to handle cases involving claims of adverse possession
  • This court concurred with that holding and dismissed an application seeking transfer on the basis that the magistrates' court lacked jurisdiction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 2nd October 2020 seeking transfer of Mumias MCLE No. 122 of 2018 from Mumias Law Courts to the Land and Environment Court at Kakamega is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesSection 3A
  • Environment and Land Court Act, 2011Section 26(3) and (4)
  • Magistrates' Courts Act, 2015Section 9(a)

Cases cited (1)

  • Patrick Ndegwa Munyua v Benjamin Kiiru Mwangi & Another
    (2020) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 26(3) and (4) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011; Section 9(a) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 2015

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Michael Patrick Inganga & 4 others v Mustafa A. Juma & 7 other [2020] KEELC 364 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Application dated 2nd October 2020 (arising from Kakamega High Court Land and Environment Case No. 177 of 2015 (OS) / Mumias MCLE No. 122 of 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/364/eng@2020-12-08

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