Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KEELC 1636 (KLR)

Sasita v Sasita & another (Environment and Land Case 114 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 1636 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
4 March 2026
ANA. Nyukuri
1,767 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A spouse challenging a sale of matrimonial land for lack of consent must file in the Magistrates' Court or High Court, not the Environment and Land Court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, married to the 1st defendant, alleged that matrimonial properties including land parcel No. Kakamega/Sango/2076 were acquired during the marriage, and that on 25th November 2014 the 1st defendant sold the suit property to the 2nd defendant without her spousal consent. She sought, inter alia, a declaration that the sale was void for want of spousal consent, anchoring her claim on section 93 of the Land Registration Act and the Matrimonial Property Act. The defendants pleaded that she contributed 'so little' towards the purchase and contended that spousal consent was unnecessary. At directions on 18th March 2025 the court directed parties to file submissions on whether the court had jurisdiction given that the dispute touches on matrimonial property; only the plaintiff filed submissions, relying on Article 162(2)(b), section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, and two authorities on the ELC's jurisdiction where matrimonial property touches on land. The court applied Owners of Motor Vessel 'Lilian S' and Samuel Kamau Macharia on jurisdiction, then examined sections 6, 7, 12 and 17 of the Matrimonial Property Act and Rules 6 and 7(4)(e) of the Matrimonial Property Rules 2022. It held that a claim for cancellation of a disposition of matrimonial property for want of spousal consent lies in the Magistrates' court where the value falls within its pecuniary jurisdiction, and in the High Court where it exceeds it. The court accordingly struck out the plaintiff's suit for want of jurisdiction and, as the parties are related by marriage, made no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction over a claim for declaration that a sale of matrimonial property is void for want of spousal consent

Holding

The court lacks jurisdiction; such a claim is within the jurisdiction of the Magistrates' court or the High Court depending on the value of the property, under Rules 6 and 7 of the Matrimonial Property Rules 2022

Reasoning

The court traced its jurisdiction to Article 162(2)(b) and section 13 of the ELC Act, but held that the plaintiff's grievance - cancellation of a disposition of matrimonial property for want of spousal consent - is a matrimonial property rights dispute. Section 17 of the Matrimonial Property Act and Rules 6 and 7 of the Matrimonial Property Rules 2022 vest jurisdiction over such claims in the Magistrates' court or the High Court according to value, not the ELC.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • Where a spouse seeks relief for cancellation of title in a disposition by their spouse during the subsistence of the marriage, the claim lies in the Magistrates' court where the value falls within its pecuniary jurisdiction, and in the High Court where it exceeds that jurisdiction.
  • Jurisdiction flows from the Constitution or statute or both, and a court cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction it does not have.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiff's suit is struck out for want of jurisdiction
  2. 2.No order as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya as read with section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Sasita v Sasita & another (Environment and Land Case 114 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 1636 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1636/eng@2026-03-04

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.