Maeri v Panyako & 3 others (Miscellaneous Civil Application E023 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2788 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to move a land dispute to a higher court because the valuation report relied on was prepared on instructions from someone already dead.
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 court should transfer the file in CMCELC 049 of 2023 to be heard before the Honourable ELC Judge.
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit in CMCELC 049 of 2023 should be transferred to the ELC on the basis of the value of the subject land
The application was dismissed because the valuation report relied on to establish a value of Kshs. 45,000,000 was discredited: it was said to have been prepared on instructions from Elijah Mikobia Maeri, who died on 26th November 2020, five years before the valuation.
The court applied the principle that he who alleges must prove. The applicant bore the burden of proving the land's value exceeded the subordinate court's pecuniary jurisdiction. On perusing the valuation report, the court found its terms of reference showed instructions were given by a man demonstrably dead at the time, as confirmed by the grant of letters of administration ad litem the applicant herself annexed. With the sole evidential basis discredited, the court could not conclude the value exceeded Kshs. 20 million and refused the transfer.
Whether the suit was anchored on adverse possession such that it was incompetent and non-transferable
The court rejected the Respondents' contention that the suit was premised on adverse possession, finding the prayers sought had no relation to adverse possession and that the Respondents misunderstood the pleadings.
The Respondents argued that because the applicant pleaded the suit was based on adverse possession, the suit was a nullity filed before a court without jurisdiction and could not lawfully be transferred. The court examined the pleadings and found that although occupation of the land was mentioned, it was not the basis of the suit, and the prayers sought bore no relation to adverse possession. On this limb the Respondents' objection failed.
Legal principles established
#- A transfer application asserting that the subject property's value exceeds the subordinate court's pecuniary jurisdiction fails where the applicant cannot prove that value with credible evidence.
Court orders
#- 1.Application dismissed in its entirety
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution; sections 13(1), (2), (4) of the Environment and Land Court Act (Cap 80); section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Transfer of CMCELC 049 of 2023 (Iscah Adhiambo vs Ishmael Panyako & 3 Others) from the Chief Magistrate's Court to the ELC Judge
The valuation report on which the transfer application was based lacked credibility, as it was said to have been prepared on the instructions of a deceased person; therefore no basis existed to find the value of the property exceeded the subordinate court's jurisdiction
Costs
Each party shall bear its own costs.
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.
It is trite law that he who alleges must prove and in this regard, the burden of proof falls on the Applicant, to prove that the land value is Kshs. 45,000,000/-
he evidently could not have been in the position to give instructions to the valuer
Therefore, the Application is dismissed in its entirety. Each party shall bear its own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment gives inconsistent figures for the property's value: the notice of motion and applicant's affidavit cite Kshs. 45,000,000 while counsel's submissions cite Kshs. 25,000,000
The suit parcel number is inconsistently rendered as Suna East/Wasweta I/6939 in the motion and Suna East/Wasweta 1/6936 in the determination
The judgment does not bear a case number of its own in the header; only the underlying CMCELC 049 of 2023 is identified
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maeri v Panyako & 3 others (Miscellaneous Civil Application E023 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2788 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Migori ELCLC (Miscellaneous Application arising from CMCELC 049 of 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2788/eng@2026-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.