Njiru (On Behalf of Ngui Clan) v Kironjo (on Behalf of Mugwe Clan) & another (Environment and Land Appeal E013 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7733 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled the Siakago magistrate's court must hear a clan's land restitution application, but cannot grant inhibition orders.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the Siakago Principal Magistrate's Court had jurisdiction to hear and determine the application for restitution dated 18/4/2019
The court held that the Magistrate erred: the ELC had already conclusively determined that the Siakago court, as the court of first instance under Section 91(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, had jurisdiction to entertain the restitution application, and she could not revisit that ruling without hearing the parties.
Angima J's ruling of 6/2/2020 conclusively determined that the proper forum for the Section 91 restitution application was the Siakago court, being the court of first instance that made the order of 26/10/2006 later reversed by the High Court. Once remitted, the Magistrate was bound to hear and determine the application; declining jurisdiction suo moto without hearing the parties amounted to overruling the superior court's ruling and was an error.
Whether an order of inhibition is available on an application for restitution under Section 91 of the Civil Procedure Act
Inhibition orders do not fall within the orders specified in Section 91, and the Magistrate's court lacks jurisdiction to grant such orders as sought.
Section 91 mandates the court of first instance to make restitution orders placing a party in the position it would have occupied but for the reversed order, together with refunds of costs, interest, damages, compensation and mesne profits consequential on the reversal. An inhibition is not among those specified orders and thus cannot be granted in a Section 91 restitution application.
Legal principles established
#- The court of first instance within the meaning of Section 91(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, empowered to hear an application for restitution of an order reversed on appeal, is the court that passed the order subsequently set aside.
- A magistrate before whom a matter is remitted on the strength of a prior judicial ruling cannot revisit that jurisdictional determination of her own motion without hearing the parties.
- An application for restitution under Section 91 should be sought in the file relating to the original suit, without routing through the supervising superior court.
Court orders
#- 1.The ruling of Hon. W. Ngumi, Principal Magistrate delivered on 3/9/2020 is set aside
- 2.Siakago PMCCC No. 3 of 2006 is remitted to the Principal Magistrate's Court at Siakago for hearing and determination of the application dated 18/4/2019 seeking restitution under Section 91 of the Civil Procedure Act
- 3.The Appellants are awarded the costs of the appeal
- On appeal from
- Principal Magistrate's Court, Siakago
- Embu ELC Case No. 219 of 2014 (formerly Siakago PMCC No. 3 of 2006)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over the ruling of the Principal Magistrate's Court, with reference to Section 91 of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njiru (On Behalf of Ngui Clan) v Kironjo (on Behalf of Mugwe Clan) & another (Environment and Land Appeal E013 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 7733 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Embu ELC Appeal arising from Embu ELC Case No. 219 of 2014 (formerly Siakago PMCC No. 3 of 2006). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7733/eng@2025-10-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.