Maasai Mara Disabled Self Help Group

c. That the Court be pleased to transfer Narok Chief Magistrates Court Elc Civil CaseNO. 108 OF 2019: Maasai Mara Self Help Group Vs Free Pentecostal Felllowship In Kenya, to this court for hearing and disposal. d. That upon granting Order 3 above, this Court be pleased to give directions that the matter proceed from where it had reached or starts denovo’ e. That costs of the application be provided for. 2. In its Supporting Adavit sworn by Jimmy Parnyumbe Luka, on even date, the Applicant averred that it is the registered owner of the suit property being Plot No Cis-mara/narok Township Narok 403 (Zone 210 Block 11) Measuring 1.762 HA, situated within Narok Township, in Narok County. Further, the Applicant averred that the Respondent is in illegal occupation of the suit property. 3. The Applicant also averred that it led Narok Chief Magistrates Court Elc Civil CaseNo.108 OF 2019, in respect of the subject matter, and during the pendency of this suit the Respondent led a Notice of Motion Application dated 9th April 2026, wherein it sought that the suit be struck out for want of pecuniary jurisdiction. The Respondent led a Valuation Report, which showed that the suit land is valued at over Ksh,=. 20,000,000/=. 4. The Applicant also averred that the trial court in the said Chief Magistrate’s Court directed the parties to move this Court to seek for an Order of transfer of the said suit to this court. The Applicant further averred that it has been acting in person, through the deponent herein, and after the suit land was allocated to it by Narok County Government, no Valuation was done. That it did not dispute the Valuation Report, and that it had acted on an honest belief that the Magistrates Court had the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to determine the suit. 5. The Application is opposed by Respondent through its Grounds of Opposition dated 15th June 2026. The Respondent contended that the instant Application is a waste of judicial time because the suit in the trial court oended the provisions of Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21. Further, that the suit at the lower court is incompetent and cannot thus be transferred to a court of competent jurisdiction. 6. The application was canvassed through written submissions, which this court has carefully considered. 7. The interested party led its written submissions dated 1st July 2026 and in support of the Application herein. The Respondent led its rival submissions dated 10th June 2026. 8. In its submissions, the Interested Party has argued and submitted that at the time of ling the suit in 2019, the Chief Magistrate’s Court had pecuniary jurisdiction as the suit property was not valued at more that Ksh. 20,000,000/=. Further, that the Respondent’s attempt to rely on a Valuation Report dated 18th March 2026, indicating the suit property is valued at Ksh. 27,000,000/=, 6 years into active litigation and after the Plainti’s case had already been closed is a classic attempt to shift the goal posts post-facto. 9. The Interested party further submitted and argued that it is a notorious economic and geographical fact that land values naturally appreciate over time due to ination, market dynamics and infrastructure developments. 10. Further, that this court has the requisite statutory and constitutional power under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 159 of the Constitution to transfer the suit. It was its further argument that the Respondent’s objection to the Applicant’s application is a delay tactic aimed at achieving litigation paralysis, and a calculated inequitable tactic designed to delay the nal disposal of this suit. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5436/eng@2026-09-17 2

page 2 of 6

11. The Respondent on the other hand submitted that the instant Application oends Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act, and is an abuse of the court process and a waste of judicial time. Further, that the suit property being Plot No. Cis Mara/narok Township Narok/403 (Zone 210 Block 11 is valued at Ksh. 27,000,000/= and thus beyond the jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court. This is buttressed by Section 7 of the Magistrate’s Court Act 2015. 12. The Respondent further submitted that the Applicant herein led its suit before a Court that lacked jurisdiction to hear the subject matter, and as such there is no competent suit that exists in the subordinate court capable of being transferred. 13. The court has carefully perused and analysed the instant Application, annextures in support of the same and response by the Respondent in opposition to the Application, and the rival written submissions, and nds the issues for determination are; i. Whether the Applicant’s Notice of Motion Application dated 16th April 2026 is merited ii. Who bears the costs of these proceedings? Analysis And Determination 14. Article 165(6) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 provides as follows;: “ The High Court has supervisory jurisdiction over the subordinate courts and over any person, body or authority exercising a judicial or quasi-judicial function, but not over a superior court.” 15. It is evident that this Court derives its power to transfer a suit from the Magistrate’s Court to this court which is an Environment and Land Court. It is not in dispute that the Environment and Land Court is a Court of Equal Status with the High Court, and thus section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act is Applicable to it. 16. This Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act states: (a) On the application of any of the parties and after notice to the parties and after hearing such of them as desire to be heard, or of its own motion without such notice, the High Court may at any stage— (i) transfer any suit, appeal or other proceeding pending before it for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (ii) withdraw any suit or other proceeding pending in any court subordinate to it, and thereafter— i. try or dispose of the same; or (ii) transfer the same for trial or disposal to any court subordinate to it and competent to try or dispose of the same; or (iii) retransfer the same for trial or disposal to the court from which it was withdrawn. (b) Where any suit or proceeding has been transferred or withdrawn as aforesaid, the court which thereafter tries such suit may, subject to any special directions in the case of an order of transfer, either retry it or proceed from the point at which it was transferred or withdrawn. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5436/eng@2026-09-17 3

page 3 of 6

17. The Court herein can therefore exercise its supervisory jurisdiction to withdraw or transfer suits for trial and nal disposal by itself or other courts subordinate to it. This law also gives the Court the general power to transfer suits, which power may be exercised at any stage of the proceedings. A court may do so either on application by a party or suo moto. 18. There are various decisions from the superior courts, in interpretation to this provision, wherein majorly the courts have held that only a suit that is competent from its inception can be transferred. 19. In the case of Biwott & another v Amin; Tanui (Interested Party) (Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3391 (KLR) (24 April 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 3391 (KLR), the court quoted the case of Mutie Mutuku t/a Diani Tour Travel (2016) eKLR ,wherein the Court of Appeal held as follows: [Para 36] “In numerous decided cases, courts, including this Court have held that it would be illegal for the High Court in exercise of its powers under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act to transfer a suit led in a court lacking jurisdiction to a court with jurisdiction and therefore sanctify an incompetent suit. This is because no competent suit exists that is capable of being transferred. Jurisdiction is a weighty fundamental matter and to allow a court to transfer an incompetent suit for want of jurisdiction to a competent Court would be to muddle up the waters and allow confusion to reign. It is settled that parties cannot, even by their consent confer jurisdiction on a court where no such jurisdiction exists. It is so fundamental that where the Court lacks jurisdiction parties cannot even seek refuge under the O2 principle or the overriding objective under the Civil Procedure Act, the Appellate Jurisdiction Act even Article 159 of the Constitution to remedy the same…” 20. The Respondent in its submissions contended that this court cannot transfer in Narok Chief Magistrates Court Elc Civil CaseNO.108 OF 2019: Maasai Mara Self Help Group Vs Free Pentecostal Felllowship In Kenya, to itself because the suit is incompetent, and thus there is no competent suit to transfer. The Respondent relied on a recent Valuation Report to support its argument and contention. 21. The Applicant does not dispute this Valuation Report, but contended that when the matter was instituted at the lower court in 2019, it was acting in person and believed that the lower court had jurisdiction. Further, that the valuation is a recent one, and since no valuation was available when the suit property was allocated to it, it could not ascertain the value of the property in 2019, when the suit was led. 22. On its part, the Interested Party submitted that the lower court had jurisdiction when the matter was led in 2019. Further, that the Respondent cannot depend on a recent Valuation Report, about 6 years since the suit at the lower court was led, and the value of the subject matter has increased over the years, and especially when the Plainti had already closed its case. Further, that this is an attempt to shift goal posts. 23. The Court has carefully considered the rival arguments and submissions, and it nds that the present Application can be distinguished from the facts in Biwott & another v Amin; Tanui (Interested Party) (Miscellaneous Application E004 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 3391 (KLR) (24 April 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 3391 (KLR), and strict application of Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act, as hereunder. 24. This Court nds guidance in the recent pronouncement by the Court of Appeal on the jurisdiction of Magistrates' Courts to entertain claims founded on adverse possession. For a considerable period, claims for adverse possession, whether instituted as substantive suits or raised by way of Counterclaims, have routinely been led and determined before Magistrates' Courts across the country. That longstanding practice, however, was revisited and authoritatively settled by the Court of Appeal in https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5436/eng@2026-09-17 4

page 4 of 6

Sugawara v Kiruti (Sued in her capacity as the administratrix of the Estate of Mutarakwa Kiruti Lepaso alias Mutaragwa Kiruti Lepaso alias Mutaragwa Kiroti Leposo and in her own capacity) & 3 others (Civil Appeal E141 of 2022) [2024] KECA 1417 (KLR) (11 October 2024). 25. In the above suit, the Court of Appeal held that Magistrates Courts do not have jurisdiction to hear adverse possession claims and that sections 37 and 38 of the Limitation of Actions Act, which provided that claims of adverse possession were to be heard by the High Court, should be construed to mean the Environment and Land Court (ELC) given the jurisdiction of the ELC under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution. 26. The aforesaid decision was rendered at a time when suits founded on adverse possession were routinely instituted and entertained before the Magistrates' Courts. Following the subsequent clarication of the law on jurisdiction, litigants moved the Environment and Land Court by way of applications seeking the transfer of such pending matters to Environment and Land Courts. The Environment and Land Courts have mainly allowed these applications notwithstanding the argument that the suits had initially been led before courts subsequently found to lack jurisdiction. 27. Similarly, in the present matter, the Respondent cannot properly rely on a Valuation Report prepared long after the institution of the suit as proof that the suit property is presently valued in excess of Kshs. 20,000,000/= and, on that basis, contend that Narok CM ELC Civil Case No. 108 of 2019: Maasai Mara Self Help Group v Free Pentecostal Fellowship in Kenya, was incompetent ab initio for want of pecuniary jurisdiction and is therefore incapable of being transferred to this Court. 28. The suit before Narok Chief Magistrate’s Court was instituted in the year 2019. Having participated in the proceedings for approximately six years, including the pre-trial conferences, and the hearing of the Applicant's (Plainti’s) case until its close, the Respondent cannot, at this late stage, seek to impeach the jurisdiction of the trial court on the basis of a recent Valuation Report. Such conduct is inconsistent with the orderly administration of justice, and undermines the overriding objective of the Court. Accordingly, that cannot be a basis of denying the Applicant’s Application for transfer of the said suit, to a Court with pecuniary jurisdiction. 29. This Court concurs and is in agreement with the Interested Party argument and submissions that the Respondent is, in eect, shifting the goalposts midway through the proceedings. If indeed the Respondent's contention is that the Chief Magistrate's Court lacked pecuniary jurisdiction at the time the suit was instituted, nothing prevented it from placing before the Court a Valuation Report in 2019 to demonstrate that the value of the suit property exceeded the Magistrate’s court pecuniary limit at the said time. 30. It is a matter of common knowledge that the value of land is not static, and ordinarily appreciates over time. Consequently, a valuation undertaken several years after the commencement of the proceedings cannot, without more, be determinative of the question whether the trial court lacked jurisdiction at the inception of the suit. 31. In any event, were this Court to accept the Respondent's Valuation Report as accurately reecting the current value of the suit property, the logical consequence would be to allow the Applicant's prayer for transfer of the suit , so that the matter may proceed before a court possessed of the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction. Such an approach would be consistent with the jurisprudence in which courts have sanctioned the transfer of pending adverse possession suits to the Environment and Land Courts, following subsequent clarication of the law on jurisdiction by the Court of Appeal. 32. The Respondent’s acts contravene the maxim of equity , which states that equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent. Therefore, this court is not persuaded by the Respondent’s arguments that its recent https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5436/eng@2026-09-17 5

page 5 of 6

Valuation Report is enough to bar this Court from transferring Civil Case No.108 Of 2019: Maasai Mara Self Help Group Vs Free Pentecostal Felllowship In Kenya to the Environment and Land Court in Narok, which is possessed of the requisite pecuniary jurisdiction to hear and determines the said suit. ii. Who bears the costs of these proceedings? 33. It is trite law that costs follow the event, and ordinarily, costs are awarded to the successful litigant. The Applicant’s Application is found to be merited, and its thus the applicant is the successful litigant, and therefore entitled to costs of the application. 34. Accordingly, the Court nds and holds that the instant Notice of Motion Application dated 16th April 2026, be and is hereby allowed. Consequently, the Court proceeds to issue the following orders: a. That Narok Chief Magistrates Civil Case No.108 Of 2019: Maasai Mara Self Help Group Vs Free Pentecostal Felllowship In Kenya be transferred to the Environment and Land Court in Narok. b. That upon transfer of Narok Chief Magistrates Civil Case No.108 of 2019: Maasai Mara Self Help Group Vs Free Pentecostal Felllowship In Kenya be transferred to the Environment and Land Court in Narok, the matter commences de novo. c. Costs of the present application are awarded to the Applicant herein. It is so Ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY, AT NAROK THIS 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026. L. GACHERU JUDGE Delivered online in the presence of Elijah Meyoki Court Assistant No Appearance for the Applicant Mr Oyugi for the Respondent Ms Mwaluko holding brief Ms Martim for the Interested Party https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5436/eng@2026-09-17 6

page 6 of 6