REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAJIADO ELC LC NO. E050 OF 2026 LIARIKET OLE SILANKE LOOLAMALA.......................... …….PLAINTIFF VERSUS POLE STAR MERCHANDISING (K) LIMITED…..…….1ST DEFENDANT SHAMSHERALI MOHAMED LELANI………….…...…2ND DEFENDANT RULING 1. Vide an application dated 16th April 2026, the 2nd Defendant/Applicant seeks the striking out of this suit on the grounds that the pecuniary value of the dispute falls within RULING ELCLC E050 OF 2026 Page 1 of 5
page 1 of 5
the jurisdiction of the Magistrate’s Court and that the Plaintiff has accordingly wrongly invoked this Court’s jurisdiction. 2. Through Grounds of Opposition dated 13th May 2026, the Plaintiff opposes the application arguing that the value of the suit property Kajiado/Dalalekutuk/2941 measuring approximately 46 acres is Kshs. 46,000,000 which is above the Magistrate’s Court pecuniary jurisdiction, and that the alleged value of Kshs. 4,600,000 was an undervalue to pay less stamp duty. 3. This application was canvassed by way 2nd Defendant/Applicant of written submissions. 4. Counsel for the submits that paragraph 5 of the Plaintiff’s plaint pleads the value of the subject matter is Kshs. 300,000 and that the suit property was transferred to the 1st Defendant by the Plaintiff in April 2024 for a value of Kshs. 4,600,000. As such, the Magistrate’s Court is the proper Court to adjudicate the dispute as per Section 7 Magistrate’s Court Act. The suit should therefore be dismissed with costs. RULING ELCLC E050 OF 2026 Page 2 of 5
page 2 of 5
5. Counsel for the Plaintiff submits that the Applicant has raised a preliminary objection disguised as an application and it should thus be dismissed. Counsel further submits that the Applicant has not produced evidence to prove the value of the property and the same cannot be deduced from the pleadings citing the case of Clement Masanga Atonga v Lewkadia Milungi [2021] KEELC 2391 (KLR). 6. Having considered the application, the affidavits on record and the rival submissions, the sole issue for determination is whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit. 7. The Applicant argues that the suit property was transferred for a consideration of Kshs. 4,600,000 and that paragraph 5 of the Plaint refers to a value of Kshs. 300,000. The Plaintiff, on the other hand, contends that the property which measures approximately 46 acres has a market value of Kshs. 46,000,000, while maintaining that the transfer consideration relied upon by the Applicant was deliberately understated. RULING ELCLC E050 OF 2026 Page 3 of 5
page 3 of 5
8. It is trite that he who alleges must prove as espoused by Section 107, 108 and 109 of the Evidence Act. 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. 9. I have examined the Plaint dated 25 th March 2025 and note that it does not plead or disclose the value of the suit property. The Applicant has not produced any documentary proof of the value of the subject matter. 10. As such, there is no basis upon which the Court can decline jurisdiction or strike out the suit. 11. Consequently, the court makes the following orders; a. The Notice of Motion dated 16th April 2026 is hereby dismissed b. Costs shall abide the outcome of the suit. Dated, Signed and Delivered virtually at Kajiado this 24th day of September 2026. JUDY OMANGE RULING ELCLC E050 OF 2026 Page 4 of 5
page 4 of 5
JUDGE. IN THE PRESENCE OF: Mr. Itaya for the Plaintiff. N/A for Defendant. Peter – Court Assistant. RULING ELCLC E050 OF 2026 Page 5 of 5
page 5 of 5