Ngigi v Makanya (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E007 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4086 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that magistrates' courts cannot decide adverse possession land claims, so a Kandara land dispute was transferred to Murang'a.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Magistrates' Court over adverse possession claims
The Magistrate Court at Kandara has no jurisdiction to deal with claims for registration of land through adverse possession; only the ELC may hear such claims.
Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Sugawara vs. Kiruti, the court held that Sections 37 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act vest jurisdiction over adverse possession claims in the Environment and Land Court (formerly the High Court). Since the applicants' counterclaim is founded on adverse possession, the Kandara Magistrates' Court cannot entertain it, and the matter must be transferred to the ELC.
Right to fair hearing under Article 50(1) and the applicants' counterclaim
The court cannot ignore the applicants' adverse possession counterclaim; the prior dismissal of their motion dated 20-9-2024 does not defeat it.
The court found that the adverse possession claim is a right guaranteed by Article 50(1) of the Constitution, which entitles every person to have a justiciable dispute decided in a fair and public hearing. The prior adverse ruling of 20-3-2025 could not extinguish the claim; the claim can only fail if the applicants do not prove it to the required standard at a fair hearing.
Status of Murang'a ELC Case No. E018/2025
There is nothing to show that case No. E018/2025 is on adverse possession; both cases should proceed as they are and the preliminary objection in that case should run its course.
The respondent argued that transferring the Kandara suit would prejudice his intended preliminary objection in Murang'a ELC Case No. E018/2025 and would create a multiplicity of suits. The court found no evidence that the E018/2025 case concerns adverse possession and declined to let it affect the transfer, directing that the two cases proceed independently.
Legal principles established
#- A Magistrates' Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine claims founded on adverse possession because Sections 37 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act vest such jurisdiction in the Environment and Land Court.
- A claim for adverse possession cannot be ignored or defeated by an adverse interlocutory ruling; it can only be defeated on proof at a fair hearing.
Court orders
#- 1.Case file No. Kandara MCELC E027/2024 (Simon Makanya vs. Hannah Njeri Ngigi and Benard Ngugi Ngigi) transferred from Kandara Magistrate Court to Murang'a Environment and Land Court for hearing and determination.
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause to be transferred from Kandara Magistrates Court.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 18 of the Civil Procedure Act (transfer jurisdiction); Article 50(1) of the Constitution; Sections 37 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngigi v Makanya (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E007 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 4086 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). MRG ELCL MISC E007 OF 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4086/eng@2026-06-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.