Korgorin v Kikwai & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1385 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled magistrates cannot decide adverse possession claims, voiding a Bomet land judgment — but nobody won costs.
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 Learned Trial Magistrate erred in allowing the Counterclaim and yet the Respondents did not have the locus standi to file it
- 2.Whether the Learned Trial Magistrate erred in finding that the Respondents acquired a portion of land parcel No. Kericho/Kapsimbiri/464 by way of adverse possession
- 3.What is the fate of the other grounds of Appeal
- 4.Who should bear costs of the appeal
Key legal issues
#Locus standi of the Respondents to counterclaim
The Respondents defended and counterclaimed in their personal capacities, the same capacity in which they were sued, so no letters of administration were required and the trial court erred not in entertaining the counterclaim on this ground
The Appellant sued the Respondents as defendants and occupiers, not as legal representatives of their deceased father's estate. The defence of adverse possession and the declaratory orders flowed from their personal position as occupants. The abandoned preliminary objection had not raised locus standi in any event, having only complained of a pleaded violation of Order 2 Rules 1-5 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The ground of appeal therefore failed.
Jurisdiction of the trial Magistrate's Court over adverse possession
The trial Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to determine the Respondents' claim of adverse possession, a claim reserved to the Environment and Land Court
Raising the question suo motu as permitted by the Supreme Court in Nasra Ibrahim Ibren, the Court relied on the Court of Appeal's decision in Sugawara v Kiruti, which construed the relevant provisions as vesting jurisdiction over adverse possession claims exclusively in the Environment and Land Court established under Article 162(2)(b). Section 9(a) of the Magistrates' Courts Act does not list adverse possession claims among matters assigned to Magistrates' Courts.
Unsubmitted grounds of appeal
Grounds 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Memorandum of Appeal were deemed abandoned for want of submissions
Neither party had submitted on these grounds. Following authority that grounds not supported by submissions stand abandoned, the Court deemed them abandoned rather than determining them on the merits.
Costs
Each party to bear its own costs of the appeal because the dispositive jurisdictional question was raised suo motu
Although costs follow the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the Court, following Kimimgi v Onuko, declined to award costs since it raised and determined the jurisdictional issue on its own motion rather than at the instance of a party.
Legal principles established
#- Magistrates' Courts lack jurisdiction to hear and determine claims for adverse possession, which are reserved to the Environment and Land Court
- A court may raise the issue of jurisdiction suo motu at any stage of the proceedings, even on appeal
- A defendant sued in a personal capacity may mount a defence of adverse possession without letters of administration
- Grounds of appeal not supported by submissions are deemed abandoned
Court orders
#- 1.The judgement delivered in Bomet CM ELC Case No. E010 of 2023 is hereby set aside
- 2.Each party shall bear own costs of the appeal
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Magistrate's Court at Bomet (ELC)
- Bomet CM ELC Case No. E010 of 2023
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appeal to the Environment and Land Court from a Magistrates' Court (ELC) decision
Relief refused
#Costs of the appeal to any party
The Court raised the jurisdictional question suo motu, so costs were not awarded to the successful Respondents
Costs
Each party shall bear own costs of the appeal
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 judgement delivered in Bomet CM ELC Case No. E010 of 2023 is hereby set aside.
I find that the Learned Trial Magistrate lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the question of adverse possession.
it is only the Environment and Land Court established under Article 162(2)(b) that is mandated to hear these cases
Jurisdiction is such an important matter that it can be raised at any stage of the proceedings even on appeal.
Each party shall bear own costs of the appeal.
it was not necessary for the Respondents to obtain letters of administration before mounting the defence of adverse possession as they did so in their personal capacities; the same capacity in which they were sued
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment is dated 5th March 2026, which post-dates the 2025 filing and hearing dates; possibly a typographical year error
The Memorandum of Appeal repeatedly refers to the trial 'Ruling' of 28th January 2025 although the trial decision was a judgment
The trial court record as reproduced shows the preliminary objection dated 17th July 2023 attacked the counterclaim's compliance with Order 2 Rules 1-5, while the Respondents' submissions describe it as raising locus standi; the Court noted this discrepancy
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Korgorin v Kikwai & 2 others (Environment and Land Appeal E003 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1385 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCA No. E003 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1385/eng@2026-03-05
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.