Ondieki v Nyabengi (Environment and Land Appeal E010 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4534 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A registered landowner lost in Kenya's Environment and Land Court because the title was actually held in trust for a family member.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether registration constituted sufficient proof of the Appellant's case
- 2.Whether or not the subordinate court lacked jurisdiction to entertain a claim for adverse possession
- 3.What reliefs this court deems just to grant
- 4.Who bears the costs of the appeal
Key legal issues
#Whether the Appellant's registered title was sufficient proof of ownership
Registration did not confer absolute ownership; from the Appellant's own pleadings he held the title on behalf of his siblings and the Respondent, giving rise to a customary trust
The Appellant pleaded that he took out letters of administration on behalf of his siblings, one of whom (Micah) was the Respondent's deceased husband, and admitted the Respondent had been in possession before the grant. The Respondent satisfied the five elements of customary trust set out in Isack Minanga Kiebia v Isaaya Theuri M'lintari, so the Appellant held the title in trust for her and was not entitled to the declaratory orders sought in the plaint.
Whether the magistrate's court had jurisdiction to determine the counterclaim for adverse possession
No - following the Court of Appeal's decision in Sugawara v Kiruti (2024), section 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act confines adverse possession claims to the Environment and Land Court, excluding the Magistrates' Court
The court noted conflicting ELC decisions (Ohungo J in Patrick Ndegwa Munyua supporting magistrates' jurisdiction; Mboya J in Njoki Wainaina denying it). The Court of Appeal settled the question in Sugawara v Kiruti in October 2024, holding that a strict reading of section 38 reserves adverse possession claims to the ELC. The lack of jurisdiction was a question of law that had to be upheld even though the point was not raised before the trial court.
Whether the Respondent had any recourse in law notwithstanding the want of jurisdiction over the adverse possession counterclaim
Yes - the court found the customary trust arising from the pleadings and evidence, entitling the Respondent to the suit land
The court may determine an issue that arose during trial even if not pleaded, provided the parties dealt with it. The constructive/customary trust question arose because the Appellant pleaded acquisition by transmission, the Respondent was on the land as the widow of the Appellant's deceased brother, and formed part of the deceased's family. The Appellant's denial of the relationship in oral evidence was an unpleaded afterthought and proof of a dishonest witness.
Costs of the appeal
Each party bears their respective costs
The appeal was dismissed; the court exercised its discretion on costs by directing that each party bear their own costs rather than awarding costs to the Respondent as the winning party in the counterclaim.
Legal principles established
#- A claim for adverse possession falls within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court and not the Magistrates' Court, following the Court of Appeal decision in Sugawara v Kiruti
- Where land was family land before registration and the registered proprietor holds it for the benefit of family members, a customary trust is presumed in favour of those members whether or not they are in possession
- A first appellate court must re-evaluate the evidence before the subordinate court while being alive to the fact that it did not see the witnesses' demeanour
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal is dismissed
- 2.Each party bears their respective costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- First appellate jurisdiction over appeals from the Chief Magistrate's Court (Environment and Land Court); no specific constitutional or statutory provision quoted in the judgment
Relief refused
#Setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial magistrate dated 26th February 2025
The appeal lacked merit; the trial magistrate's findings stood and the customary trust claim succeeded on the evidence
Dismissal of the Respondent's counterclaim for adverse possession on jurisdictional grounds
Although the court accepted the want of jurisdiction finding based on Sugawara v Kiruti, the appeal nonetheless failed because the Respondent was entitled to the land by way of customary trust
Costs of the appeal and of the subordinate court awarded to the Appellant
The appeal was dismissed and each party was ordered to bear their respective costs
Costs
The appeal is dismissed with an order that each party bears their respective 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.
The appeal is dismissed with an order that each party bears their respective costs
This court does find that the Appellant is holding the title to the suit land in trust for the Respondent. He was therefore not entitled to the declaratory orders sought in his plaint.
Despite lack of knowledge of the Sugwara decision, the fact of want of jurisdiction remains a question of law that must be upheld.
a strict interpretation of section 38 would mean that hearing and determination of such matters is specifically limited to the Environment and Land Court to the exclusion of the Magistrates' Court.
Without any amendment to the plaint and the witness statement on record, the denial of any relationship with the Respondent was an afterthought and proof of a dishonest witness.
Issues in the judgment
#Ground (c) of the grounds of appeal describes the Respondent as the registered owner of the land, contradicting the Appellant's pleaded case that he himself is the registered owner
The judgment states the appeal was against entry of judgment for the Respondent, but at the same time the court states it would set aside that adverse-possession judgment while still dismissing the appeal on the basis of the customary trust - the interplay between setting aside the decree and dismissing the appeal is not fully reconciled in the final order
Inconsistent spelling of the leading authority's name - 'Sugawara' in the case name and 'Sugwara' in the analysis
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ondieki v Nyabengi (Environment and Land Appeal E010 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4534 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4534/eng@2026-07-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.