Orodho alias Jimmy Ogongo Opiyo & another (Suing in their Personal Capacity and as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of Alexander Paul Opiyo Orodho) v Nyangweso & 2 others (Sued in their Personal Capacity and as Representatives of the Estate of Andere Ondeyo) (Environment and Land Appeal E010 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 82 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Magistrates' courts in Kenya cannot decide adverse possession land claims; filing such a case in the wrong court means it will be struck out, no matter how strong your evidence is.
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 Magistrate's court had jurisdiction to hear and determine adverse possession claims.
- 2.Whether the trial court had authority to pronounce herself on the original Originating Summons dated 13th December 2022 when there existed an amended Originating Summons dated 22nd September 2023.
- 3.Whether the use of the suit parcel of land is not clear after the demise of Alexander Paul Opiyo Orodho.
- 4.Whether the Appellants met the threshold for grant of a declaration of adverse possession orders.
- 5.What orders should issue from the appeal.
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Magistrate's court to hear adverse possession claims
The trial court had no jurisdiction to entertain the adverse possession claim and ought to have struck out the suit for want of jurisdiction.
Relying on section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act and the Court of Appeal decision in Sugawara vs Kiruti, the court held that adverse possession claims fall outside the jurisdiction of Magistrates' courts. Although the parties and the trial court prosecuted the suit to conclusion, neither acquiescence nor the court's failure to raise the issue suo moto could confer jurisdiction. The proper course was for the trial court to down its tools and strike out the suit. The appeal thus succeeded on jurisdiction alone.
Duty of a first appellate court
As a first appeal, the court was enjoined to re-examine the evidence and arrive at independent conclusions, but the jurisdictional defect disposed of the appeal.
Citing Selle & Another vs Associated Motor Boat Company Limited and Gitobu Imanyara & 2 others vs Attorney General, the court acknowledged its duty on first appeal to re-evaluate the trial evidence. However, having found the trial court wholly without jurisdiction, the remaining issues on adverse possession fell away and the only appropriate outcome was striking out the suit.
Costs
Although costs follow the event, the Appellants were denied costs of the trial court because they filed and prosecuted the suit in a court without jurisdiction.
The court exercised its discretion on costs against the Appellants, noting that they themselves chose the forum lacking jurisdiction and then appealed on that very ground. In the interests of justice, the respondents were compensated by an award of costs of the appeal.
Legal principles established
#- A court without jurisdiction cannot cure the defect by acquiescence of the parties; failure to raise jurisdiction does not validate proceedings.
- Magistrates' courts have no jurisdiction to determine claims of adverse possession under section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act.
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is allowed.
- 2.The judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit is set aside and replaced with a judgment striking out the suit for lack of jurisdiction.
- 3.No order as to costs in the trial court.
- 4.Costs of the appeal awarded to the respondents.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Principal Magistrate's Court, Vihiga
- Vihiga SPMC E & L Case No. E300 of 2022
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appeal to the Environment and Land Court from the Magistrates' Court (Environment and Land Court jurisdiction); appeal against judgment in adverse possession claim under section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act
Relief refused
#Substitution of the trial court judgment with orders declaring the Appellants entitled to the suit land by adverse possession and costs in the trial court
The trial court lacked jurisdiction; the suit was struck out rather than remitted for determination, and costs in the trial court were not awarded to the Appellants who had sued in a court without jurisdiction
Costs
No order as to costs in the trial court; costs of the appeal awarded to the respondents.
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.
The appeal is hereby allowed. The judgment of the trial court dismissing the suit is hereby set aside and replaced with a judgment striking out the suit for lack of jurisdiction with no order as to costs. Costs of the appeal are awarded to the respondents.
failure of the parties to move the court on the issue of jurisdiction and failure of the court to find suo moto that it had no jurisdiction neither donates jurisdiction to the court nor validates a court decision made without jurisdiction.
The appropriate step that the trial court ought to have taken as held in the cases cited by the appellant on jurisdiction, was to down its tools and strike out the suit for want of jurisdiction.
the Magistrates court has no jurisdiction to entertain claims based on adverse possession for as long as Section 38 of the Limitations Act has not been amended to accommodate the said courts.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment gives two different dates for the trial court's judgment
The judgment lists four substantive issues but enumerates five items (a to e)
The trial court's judgment is variously dated in the memoranda of appeal description (dated 11th February 2025) while the dismissal finding is attributed to 14th February 2025
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Orodho alias Jimmy Ogongo Opiyo & another (Suing in their Personal Capacity and as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of Alexander Paul Opiyo Orodho) v Nyangweso & 2 others (Sued in their Personal Capacity and as Representatives of the Estate of Andere Ondeyo) (Environment and Land Appeal E010 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 82 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Vihiga ELC Appeal from SPMC E & L Case No. E300 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/82/eng@2026-01-20
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.