Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2026] KEELC 2620 (KLR)

Karigi v Munyi (Land Case Appeal E011 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2620 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 April 2026
ECE. C. Cherono
2,335 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court confirmed only the Environment and Land Court can decide adverse possession claims, and set aside an eviction that would have blocked such a claim.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Respondent, as plaintiff before the magistrates' court, sued for a declaration of ownership of land parcel Gaturi/Weru/3637 (also referred to as Gaturi/Githimu/3637), eviction of the Appellant, and a restraining order. The Appellant defended and counterclaimed, asserting she had been in open, continuous and uninterrupted occupation since 1965 and had acquired title by adverse possession. The trial court found the land was registered in the Respondent's name and that the Appellant, not being a licensee, was in illegal occupation. Relying on Sugawara v Kiruti, it held it lacked jurisdiction to determine the adverse possession counterclaim, allowed the Respondent's suit as pleaded, and directed each party to bear their own costs. On appeal, the Appellant argued the magistrates' court had jurisdiction under section 9(a) of the Magistrates' Court Act to determine adverse possession raised by counterclaim, and that her long occupation had extinguished the Respondent's title under the Limitation of Actions Act. The Respondent maintained that adverse possession claims lie exclusively in the Environment and Land Court and that her certificate of title was indefeasible under section 24(2) of the Land Registration Act. The ELC, Cherono J, upheld the trial court's finding of lack of jurisdiction over the adverse possession counterclaim, following Sugawara v Kiruti. However, it found the trial court erred in proceeding to order eviction after declining jurisdiction, since that order blocked the Appellant from pursuing her claim in the proper forum. The appeal partially succeeded: the eviction order was set aside, with each party bearing their own costs of the appeal and the trial proceedings.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the magistrates' court had jurisdiction over the counterclaim for adverse possession

Holding

The trial court did not err in declining jurisdiction over the adverse possession counterclaim

Reasoning

Relying on Sugawara v Kiruti, the court held that by virtue of section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act, claims for adverse possession are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court. The Appellant's argument based on section 9(a) of the Magistrates' Court Act did not displace this exclusive jurisdiction, and the trial court correctly declined to pronounce itself on the merits of the counterclaim.

p. 4
02

Whether the trial court's eviction order was proper given its finding of lack of jurisdiction

Holding

The eviction order was improper and was set aside, as it blocked the Appellant from pursuing her adverse possession claim in the competent court

Reasoning

Once the trial court found it lacked jurisdiction over the counterclaim, it should have stopped there. By allowing the eviction, it closed the door on the Appellant's right to have her adverse possession claim heard before the Environment and Land Court. The correct approach was to decline jurisdiction and leave the parties to pursue their claims before the competent court.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Subordinate courts lack jurisdiction to entertain and determine claims for adverse possession, which are exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court
  • A court that declines jurisdiction over part of a claim should not proceed to make orders (such as eviction) that effectively extinguish the plaintiff's ability to pursue that claim in the competent court

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The order of eviction issued by the trial court is set aside
  2. 2.Each party shall bear their own costs of the appeal and of the proceedings before the trial court
On appeal from
Magistrates' Court (Environment and Land jurisdiction)
Not stated in the judgment
Jurisdiction invoked
Appeal from the Magistrates' Court under the Magistrates' Court Act 2015 (Environment and Land matters within pecuniary limits)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karigi v Munyi (Land Case Appeal E011 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2620 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2620/eng@2026-04-30

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