Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELRCPartially AllowedCivil Appeal E024 of 2023· [2025] KEELRC 262 (KLR)

Adpack Limited v Nyamasage (Appeal E252 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 262 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
15 July 2024
2,858 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled a disputed parcel must be included in a deceased man's estate, but an equal split of the other parcel stands.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was an appeal to the Environment and Land Court at Kisii from a decision of the Magistrates' Court at Kisii (Hon. Grace Omodho, SRM) in a Succession Cause. The trial court had distributed land parcel number 264 equally between the appellant and the respondent and excluded land parcel number 263 from the distribution, reasoning that the appellant had not demonstrated how the deceased acquired it. The appellant raised a memorandum of appeal citing, inter alia, that the trial court erred in fact and law in excluding parcel 263 and in distributing parcel 264 equally. The respondent opposed the appeal, contending that it was unmerited and that she, as a widow and dependent of the deceased, was entitled to her share. On the merits, the court held that the trial court should have included parcel 263 in the distribution, as the title was not disputed between the parties, and set aside the judgment and the certificate of confirmation of grant only to the extent that they related to parcel 263. It included parcel 263 in the estate and directed that it be distributed in accordance with the trial court's proposed mode of distribution, with the total acreage of the estate now being 1.24 Ha or 3.07 Acres. The court upheld the equal distribution of parcel 264. Notably, the court expressed the view that it had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal from a Succession Cause decided by a Magistrate's Court, since such appeals lie to the High Court, but elected not to strike out the appeal given the parties' preference for a decision on the merits. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs. The net effect is a partial success for the appellant: parcel 263 is now available for distribution, but the equal split of parcel 264 stands.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the ELC to entertain an appeal from a Magistrate's Court decision in a Succession Cause

Holding

The ELC lacks jurisdiction to hear such an appeal; however, the court elected not to strike out the appeal given the parties' preference for a decision on the merits

Reasoning

The court reviewed the Law of Succession Act, the Magistrates' Courts Act, and the Environment and Land Court Act. Appeals from Magistrates' Courts are to the High Court. The ELC's appellate jurisdiction is limited to appeals from subordinate courts in respect of disputes relating to the environment, the use and occupation of, and title to, land. A Succession Cause does not fall within that scope.

02

Inclusion of land parcel number 263 in the distribution of the estate

Holding

The trial court erred in excluding parcel 263; it is part of the estate and must be distributed alongside parcel 264 in accordance with the trial court's proposed mode of distribution

Reasoning

The appellant pleaded and testified that the estate comprises both parcels 263 and 264, and that the trial court should distribute both. The trial court only distributed parcel 264 and excluded parcel 263 on the reasoning that the appellant had not demonstrated how the deceased acquired it. The appellate court found that the title was not in dispute between the parties and that the trial court should have declared the rights and obligations of the parties and distributed both parcels.

03

Distribution of land parcel number 264

Holding

The trial court's decision to distribute parcel 264 equally between the appellant and the respondent was unassailed and is upheld

Reasoning

The court found that the trial court's disposition of parcel 264, splitting it equally, took into account the needs of the parties, including the respondent's status as a widow with children and improvements she had made, and was reasonable. The court declined to interfere with this exercise of discretion.

Legal principles established

#
  • The ELC does not have jurisdiction to entertain appeals from a Succession Cause decided by a Magistrate's Court; such appeals fall outside the ELC's mandate under the Law of Succession Act

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The appeal is allowed only to the extent that the judgment delivered on 24th November, 2023 and the subsequent Certificate of Confirmation of Grant dated 15th December, 2023 be and are hereby set aside only in so far as they related to land parcel number 263
  2. 2.For the avoidance of doubt, land parcel number 263 is hereby included as part of the estate of the late Alfred Onyango and shall be distributed in accordance with the mode of distribution proposed by the trial court
  3. 3.For clarity, the total acreage of the estate, now including parcel number 263, is 1.24 Ha or 3.07 Acres
  4. 4.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 165(2); Article 165(3)(d)
  • Law of Succession ActSections 2(1), 3(1), 76, 35(3), 41
  • Magistrates' Courts ActSections 3, 30
  • Environment and Land Court ActSections 3(1), 13(2)(b), 13(7)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 65
  • Employment ActSections 35, 41, 43, 44(4)(g), 45, 47(5), 49(1)(c), 49(4)
  • Evidence ActSection 107

Cases cited (17)

  • G4S Security Services (K) Ltd v Lagat
    (Appeal E015 of 2021) [2022] KEELRC 13433 (KLR)
  • Jackson Butiya v Eastern Produce
    Cause 335 of 2011
  • Simba Corporation t/a Acacia Premier Hotel v Kirui
    (Appeal E020 of 2023) [2024] KEELRC 413 (KLR)
  • Kenya Broadcasting Corporation v Geoffrey Wakio
    [2019] eKLR
  • Masila Ngengya v Meya Agri Traders Limited
    [2018] eKLR
  • Christopher Komen Chebet v Brinks Security Limited
    [2019] eKLR
  • Peter Ngunjiri Kariuki v Board of Management Magomano Secondary School
    [2022] eKLR
  • Kalani v East African Growers Limited
    (Cause 2181 of 2015) (2022) KEELRC 1663 (KLR)
  • Abok James Odera t/a AJ Odera & Associates v John Patrick Machira t/a Machira
    eKLR
  • Walter Ogal Anuro v Teachers Service Commission
    (2013) eKLR
  • Trebar Marambe v For You Chinese Restaurant
    [2021] eKLR
  • Adpack Limited v Makau
    (Appeal E223 of 2022) (2023) KEELRC 2764 (KLR)
  • Kangethe t/a Nakubreeze Travellers Inn v David
    (Civil Appeal 332 of 2019) (2024) KECA 932 (KLR)
  • Dodhia v National & Grindlays Bank Limited and Another
    (1970) EA 195
  • Gitobu Imanyara & 2 others v Attorney General
    [2016] eKLR
  • Mary Chemweno Kiptui v Kenya Pipeline Company Limited
    [2014] eKLR
  • Janet Nyandiko vs Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
    (2017) eKLR
On appeal from
Magistrates' Court at Kisii
Succ. Cause No. 34 of 2019
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 165(2) and Section 3(1) of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Adpack Limited v Nyamasage (Appeal E252 of 2023) [2025] KEELRC 262 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Civil Appeal E024 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2025/262/eng@2025-01-31

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