AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 18th February 2026 (Kapsabet Chief Magistrate's Court Land Case No. E069 of 2022)· [2026] KEELC 1772 (KLR)
Serem & another v Rotich & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 1772 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet (Ong'ondo J) on a Notice of Motion dated 18th February 2026 by Ernest Kipkatam Rotich and Wilfreda Jepkoech Rotich, the applicants in Kapsabet Chief Magistrate's Court Land Case No. E069 of 2022, a suit they instituted on 17th October 2022 by way of adverse possession against Caleb Kiptoo Sitienei Sere and Kenneth Kipkorir Serem. The applicants sought transfer of the lower court file to the Environment and Land Court for trial and final disposal, on the grounds that the Magistrate's Court lacks jurisdiction over suits founded on adverse possession, that jurisdiction being exclusively reserved for the Environment and Land Court. They noted that before the delivery of the Court of Appeal judgment they relied on, magistrates' courts had determined adverse possession claims subject to pecuniary jurisdiction. Mr. Maritim, counsel for the respondents, did not oppose the application, stating it related to an adverse possession claim and could be allowed. The court applied the established principles that jurisdiction is everything (Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' v Caltex Oil Kenya Ltd) and that lack of jurisdiction renders a decision void rather than voidable (Republic v Karisa Chengo, Supreme Court), and noted the Court of Appeal's holding in Sugawara v Kiruti (2024) that Magistrates' Courts lack jurisdiction over adverse possession claims. The court allowed the application in terms of the transfer prayer and made no orders as to costs.
Key legal issues
#01
Jurisdiction of Magistrates' Courts over adverse possession claims
Holding
The Magistrate's Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine suits founded on adverse possession, which is exclusively reserved for the Environment and Land Court
Reasoning
The court relied on the trite position from Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' that jurisdiction is everything, and on the Supreme Court's holding in Republic v Karisa Chengo that lack of jurisdiction renders a decision void. It also noted the Court of Appeal decision in Sugawara v Kiruti (2024) holding that Magistrates' Courts lack jurisdiction over adverse possession claims. The respondents' counsel did not oppose the application. Accordingly the transfer was granted.
p. 1
Legal principles established
#- Jurisdiction is everything; without it a court cannot take a further step
- Lack of jurisdiction renders a court's decision void rather than merely voidable
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 18th February 2026 allowed in terms of prayer for transfer of the suit
- 2.The lower court file, Kapsabet Chief Magistrate's Court Land Case No. E069 of 2022, transferred to the Environment and Land Court for trial and final disposal
- 3.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court's exclusive jurisdiction over adverse possession claims (as argued, jurisdiction exclusively reserved for the Environment and Land Court); transfer power over subordinate court files
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Serem & another v Rotich & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E001 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 1772 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 18th February 2026 (Kapsabet Chief Magistrate's Court Land Case No. E069 of 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1772/eng@2026-03-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.