Kingola v Mulwa (Land Case E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3625 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court, not magistrates' courts, alone hears adverse possession land claims, so squatters' ownership suits filed there are safe from jurisdiction objections.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Environment and Land Court, and not the magistrates' court, has jurisdiction over claims for registration of land by adverse possession
Section 38(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act vests jurisdiction over adverse possession claims exclusively in the Environment and Land Court; the preliminary objection failed.
The court found the originating summons was an adverse possession claim under Section 38(1). Applying the Court of Appeal's decision in Sugawara v Kiruti, it held that a strict interpretation of section 38 limits hearing and determination of such matters to the Environment and Land Court, Parliament having not expressly conferred such jurisdiction on magistrates' courts. The objection on pecuniary and territorial grounds therefore failed.
Legal principles established
#- Hearing and determination of claims for adverse possession is exclusively vested in the Environment and Land Court to the exclusion of the Magistrates' Court.
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection dated 4th March, 2024 is dismissed with costs to the Applicant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 38(1) of the Limitation of Actions Act; Environment and Land Court Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kingola v Mulwa (Land Case E002 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3625 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated on face of judgment (Originating Summons dated 16th February, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3625/eng@2025-05-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.