Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC LC No. E050 of 2026

Liariket Ole Silanke Loolamala v Pole Star Merchandising (K) Limited & another

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
24 September 2026
JOJudy Omange
603 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 2nd Defendant, Shamsherali Mohamed Lelani, applied by Notice of Motion dated 16th April 2026 for the striking out of the Plaintiff's suit on the ground that the pecuniary value of the dispute falls within the Magistrate's Court's jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Magistrate's Court Act, the suit property having been transferred in April 2024 for Kshs 4,600,000 and paragraph 5 of the plaint pleading a value of Kshs 300,000. The Plaintiff opposed via Grounds of Opposition, contending that the suit property, Kajiado/Dalalekutuk/2914 measuring approximately 46 acres, is worth Kshs 46,000,000, above the Magistrate's Court's pecuniary jurisdiction, and that the lower figures were an undervalue to reduce stamp duty. The Plaintiff also argued the application was a preliminary objection in disguise and that the applicant had produced no evidence of value, citing Clement Masanga Atonga v Lewkadia Milungi [2021] KEELC 2391 (KLR). Framing the sole issue as whether the Court has jurisdiction, Omange J held that pecuniary jurisdiction is an evidentiary question and that the party raising the objection bears the burden of proving value under Sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act. The plaint did not disclose the value of the suit property and the applicant produced no documentary proof of value. The Notice of Motion was dismissed, with costs to abide the outcome of the suit.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit, given the alleged pecuniary value of the dispute

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Environment and Land Court lacks pecuniary jurisdiction because the dispute value falls within the Magistrate's Court jurisdiction

Holding

Application dismissed; the applicant failed to prove the value of the subject matter, so the Court could not decline jurisdiction

Reasoning

Pecuniary jurisdiction is an evidentiary question. The applicant alleged the property transferred for Kshs 4,600,000 and that the plaint pleaded Kshs 300,000, but produced no documentary proof of value. The plaint did not disclose the value of the suit property. Applying Sections 107-109 of the Evidence Act, the burden lay on the applicant, which it failed to discharge.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The party raising a pecuniary jurisdiction objection bears the burden of placing sufficient material before the Court from which the value can be ascertained

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 16th April 2026 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs shall abide the outcome of the suit

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

JO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act; objection based on Section 7 of the Magistrate's Court Act

Relief refused

#

Striking out of the suit for want of pecuniary jurisdiction

Applicant failed to discharge the evidentiary burden of proving the value of the subject matter

p. 4

Costs

Costs shall abide the outcome of the suit

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 question of pecuniary jurisdiction is an evidentiary question. As such, the party raising the pecuniary objection bears the burden of placing before the Court sufficient material from which the value can reasonably be ascertained.
p. 4burden of proof on pecuniary jurisdiction
It is trite that he who alleges must prove as espoused by Section 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act.
p. 4evidentiary burden
a. The Notice of Motion dated 16th April 2026 is hereby dismissed b. Costs shall abide the outcome of the suit.
p. 4final orders

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Plaint dated 25th March 2025 but suit filed as E050 of 2026; application dated 16th April 2026

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Liariket Ole Silanke Loolamala v Pole Star Merchandising (K) Limited & another", Case Analysis (2026). ELC LC No. E050 of 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5851/eng@2026-09-24

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