Stanley Kathurima M’Twarugoji v Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd & Another
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court struck out a borrower's application because loan and charge disputes belong in the High Court, not the ELC.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Environment and Land Court is seized of jurisdiction to dispose of the application
- 2.Whether the application meets the criteria for enlargement of time for lodging an appeal to this court
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELC over the extension-of-time application
The ELC lacks jurisdiction because the dominant questions concern whether a loan was borrowed and whether the title was used as collateral - matters relating to a charge, which fall within the High Court's civil jurisdiction
The court applied Court of Appeal authority (Co-operative Bank v Kangethe Njuguna; Bank of Africa v TSS Investment) holding that ELC jurisdiction covers disputes connected to the 'use' of land, excluding mortgages and charges. Since the dominant questions here concern the validity of a charge, the application was filed in the wrong court and is a nullity ab initio.
Whether the court could transfer the miscellaneous suit to the High Court suo motu
No - a suit filed without jurisdiction cannot be transferred; the only remedy is to withdraw it and file a compliant one in the competent court
Relying on Phoenix of E.A. Assurance v Thiga and Equity Bank v Mutie, the court held that transferring an incompetent suit would sanctify it, and that parties cannot by consent confer jurisdiction. The court therefore downed its tools per Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S'.
Whether the extension-of-time criteria were met
Not determined, as the application failed at the threshold jurisdictional stage
The court framed two questions but disposed only of the first, striking out the application for want of jurisdiction before reaching the criteria for enlargement of time.
Legal principles established
#- Disputes relating to mortgages and charges do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court but within the civil jurisdiction of the High Court
- A suit filed in a court without jurisdiction is a nullity and cannot be transferred to a court with jurisdiction
- An erroneous designation of a case in a magistrate court cannot confer appellate jurisdiction on the Environment and Land Court; appellate jurisdiction is derived from the dominant question in the dispute
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 3/5/2025 is struck out on the ground of want of jurisdiction on the part of the Environment and Land Court
- 2.The applicant shall bear costs of the suit
- 3.The applicant is at liberty to file a competent application in the High Court
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court at Meru
- Meru CMCC E & L Case No. E190 of 2024
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over appeals from designated Environment and Land matters in the magistrates' courts; court held it lacked jurisdiction because the dominant dispute concerns a charge/mortgage within the High Court's civil jurisdiction (Section 13, Environment and Land Court Act; Section 27, Civil Procedure Act on costs)
Relief refused
#Order enlarging time to file an appeal against the Chief Magistrate's ruling of 18/2/2025, and ancillary injunctive relief
The application was filed in a court without jurisdiction over the dominant dispute (a charge/mortgage dispute), making it a nullity that could not be transferred
Costs
The applicant shall bear costs of the suit
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the end, the application dated 3/5/2025 is struck out on the ground of want of jurisdiction on part of the Environment and Land Court. The applicant shall bear costs of the suit.
Regrettably, an erroneous designation of a case/dispute in a magistrate court does not and cannot confer jurisdiction on the Environment & Land Court.
Jurisdiction is everything. Without it a court has no power to make one more step.
The application is a nullity ab initio on the above ground.
Issues in the judgment
#The 2nd respondent is not individually named in the ruling text; it is referred to only as 'the 2nd respondent' (contextually a bank/chargee)
Typographical inconsistencies: auction date appears as '28/8/20224' and the suit parcel appears as Ntima/Ntakira/5123 in one passage and Ntima/Ntakira/5133 in another
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stanley Kathurima M’Twarugoji v Co-operative Bank of Kenya Ltd & Another", Case Analysis (2025). Miscellaneous Application dated 3/5/2025 (arising from Meru CMCC E & L Case No. E190 of 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6562/eng@2025-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.