Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedApplication dated 9th August 2021 in Garissa ELC (arising from Garissa CMCC No. E009 of 2021)· [2021] KEELC 524 (KLR)

Hassan Galbinoor & 2 others v Ismail Abdow & 4 others [2021] KEELC 524 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 November 2021
1,965 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicants, represented by their advocate B Ongeri Oyugi, moved the Environment and Land Court at Garissa by application dated 9th August 2021 seeking transfer of Garissa CMCC No. E009 of 2021 to the Chief Magistrate's Court at Thika, together with an interim injunction restraining the respondents from dealing with suit property LR 31331 (IR No. 220252) in Garissa Township. The applicants, who describe themselves as the registered owners, explained that a Senior Resident Magistrate had ruled the suit beyond his pecuniary jurisdiction and directed it to the Chief Magistrate's Court, where Hon Cosmas Maundu (CM) recused himself because a related criminal case against the 2nd respondent was pending before him, advising that the suit be moved to the ELC. The respondents, Ismail Abdow and another, opposed the transfer, noting the property lies in Garissa County, and disclosed that they and 75 others had filed Originating Summons No. 1 of 2021 claiming the property by adverse possession. Neither party filed submissions. The court considered the two conflicting valuation reports (Kshs 12 million and Kshs 190 million), held that expert evidence does not trump other evidence, and taking judicial notice of market values placed the land at approximately Kshs 150 million, exceeding the Chief Magistrate's Kshs 20 million pecuniary jurisdiction. Relying on Abraham Mwangi Wamigwi, the court held a suit filed without jurisdiction is a nullity that cannot be transferred under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act. The application was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit in the Chief Magistrate's Court could be transferred under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act

Holding

No - the suit was instituted before a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction and was therefore a nullity incapable of transfer

Reasoning

The court noted conflicting valuation reports valuing the suit property at Kshs 12 million and Kshs 190 million. Taking judicial notice of local land values, the judge placed the value at approximately Kshs 150 million, exceeding the Chief Magistrate's Kshs 20 million pecuniary limit. Relying on Abraham Mwangi Wamigwi, a suit filed in a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and Section 18 transfer powers cannot be invoked to cure it.

p. 3
02

Treatment of conflicting expert valuation evidence

Holding

Expert evidence does not trump other evidence; conflicting expert opinion must be tested against all the other evidence in the case

Reasoning

Drawing on Mativo J in Stephen Kinini Wang'ondu v The Ark Limited, the court held that expert valuation reports are merely part of the evidence. Where experts conflict, the court must test the opinions against the factual background and other evidence, and may disagree with experts. The court therefore made its own estimation of value rather than adopting either report wholesale.

p. 3
03

Discretion to transfer suits for convenient administration of justice

Holding

Transfer under Section 18 is discretionary and considers the nature of proceedings, relief sought, interests of litigants and convenience - but presupposes a valid cause

Reasoning

Citing Equity Bank Limited v Bruce Mutie Mutuku and Heinz Isbrecht v Charles Ochieng Ndiga, the court acknowledged the wide transfer powers under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 12 on territorial jurisdiction. However, this discretion could not be exercised because the underlying suit was a nullity for want of pecuniary jurisdiction.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A suit filed in a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be transferred under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act
  • Jurisdiction is a substantial issue going to the heart of a matter; without jurisdiction a court acts in vain

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 9th August 2021 (referred to in the disposition as dated 17th August 2021) is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 18
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 12
  • Magistrates' Court ActSection 5 (as amended by Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act No. 12 of 2012)
  • Statute Law (Miscellaneous Amendments) Act No. 12 of 2012

Cases cited (6)

  • Peter Mburu v Andrew Kimani Adam & 2 others
    [2016] eKLR
  • Equity Bank Limited v Bruce Mutie Mutuku t/a Diani Tour & Travel
    [2016] eKLR
  • Heinz Isbrecht v Charles Ochieng Ndiga
    (Msa) Misc. Application No. 20 of 1997
  • Stephen Kinini Wang'ondu v The Ark Limited
    Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2014 (2016) eKLR
  • Abraham Mwangi Wamigwi v Simon Mbiriri Wanjiku & Another
    [2012] eKLR
  • The Owners of Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil Kenya Limited
    [1989] KLR 1
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act (power to transfer suits)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Hassan Galbinoor & 2 others v Ismail Abdow & 4 others [2021] KEELC 524 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Application dated 9th August 2021 in Garissa ELC (arising from Garissa CMCC No. E009 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/524/eng@2021-11-26

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