Gechure M Osoro v Lawrence Nyabwana Osoro (deceased) & 1 other

4. The jurisdiction of a court in succession matters is determined by the value of the estate at the time the proceedings are instituted. This position finds statutory anchorage in section 48(1) of the Law of Succession Act, which expressly limits the jurisdiction of magistrates’ courts to estates whose gross value does not exceed the prescribed pecuniary threshold, and section 7 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act which sets out that pecuniary jurisdiction. These provisions operate within the broader framework of Article 165(3) of the Constitution, which vests the High Court with unlimited original jurisdiction in civil matters. 5. It is a cardinal principle of civil procedure that the jurisdiction of a court is fixed at the time of commencement of proceedings and cannot be altered by subsequent events or changes in the value of the subject matter. This principle ensures legal certainty and finality in judicial proceedings. Once a court has validly assumed jurisdiction, that jurisdiction persists notwithstanding developments that occur after the commencement of the suit. 6. The critical question before this Court is: at what point in time should the value of the estate be assessed for purposes of determining jurisdiction? 7. The answer is unambiguous: the value of the estate for purposes of jurisdiction must be assessed as at the time the original application was instituted. Nyamira Chief Magistrates Succession Cause No. 21 of 2014 was filed in 2014. The Applicant has not placed before this Court any evidence of the value of the estate as at that date, but instead relies on a valuation prepared approximately eight (8) years later. That valuation does not address the position at the time of filing and cannot be used to retrospectively determine jurisdiction. In the absence of any contemporaneous or proximate evidence of value, there is no basis upon which this Court can interrogate the jurisdiction exercised by the trial court. 8. It follows that, at the time Nyamira Chief Magistrates Succession Cause No. 21 of 2014 was instituted, there existed a presumption in favour of the validity of the Magistrate’s Court’s assumption of jurisdiction. That presumption is rooted in the settled principle that where a court of competent jurisdiction is seized of a matter, its jurisdiction is presumed lawful unless the contrary is demonstrated. The burden rests upon the party challenging jurisdiction to establish, on cogent evidence, that the court lacked jurisdiction ratione materiae at the time of institution. In the present case, that burden has not been discharged. 9. From the foregoing, the Court finds that the Applicant’s approach is procedurally and substantively flawed. To accept the proposition that a subsequent increase in property value can divest a court of jurisdiction would introduce uncertainty into the civil process and invite challenges to proceedings long after institution. Such an approach would encourage endless litigation and amount to an abuse of process. 10. Further, the Applicant had the opportunity at the time of filing, or shortly thereafter, to place before the Court evidence of value or to seek an appropriate transfer. The reliance on a valuation obtained years later, without more, is both belated and untenable. 11. Although the 2nd Respondent indicates that he does not oppose the transfer of the matter to the High Court, that position does not justify the orders sought. Jurisdiction is a matter of law and cannot be conferred by consent. More fundamentally, to permit the course proposed would entrench an undesirable practice whereby parties shuttle proceedings between the Magistrates’ Court and the High Court on the basis of subsequent property valuations. Given that land values are not static and generally appreciate over time, such a practice would undermine finality, encourage forum-shopping, and render the administration of justice uncertain and untidy. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6671/eng@2026-04-23 2

page 2 of 3

12. For these reasons, the application is misguided, untenable, and unsupported by the requisite evidence. In the premises, this Court makes the following Orders: 1. The application dated 26th January 2024 is dismissed. 2. For the avoidance of doubt, Misc Application No. 1 of 2016, as transferred by this Court on 04th May 2017 to the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Nyamira, shall proceed to hearing and determination before that court. 3. The Court takes judicial notice that a period of approximately nine (9) years has now elapsed since the said transfer without the matter being heard and determined. This inordinate delay is inimical to the overriding objective of the court process and parties are hereby cautioned that no further delay will be tolerated. 4. The parties are directed to take immediate steps to set down Misc Application No. 1 of 2016 for hearing before the Chief Magistrate’s Court at Nyamira on a priority basis. 5. Costs of this application are awarded to the 2nd Respondent, James Ochwoga N. Ouro, to be paid by the Applicant. 6. This being a miscellaneous application, the file is hereby marked as closed. DELIVERED AT NYAMIRA THIS 23RD DAY OF APRIL 2026 WAMAE.T. W. CHERERE JUDGE Appearances Court Assistant - Hilda For Applicant – Mr. Anyona for Asati,Anyona & Co. Advocates For 2nd Respondent - Mr. Mongare for Mongare & Co. Advocates https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/6671/eng@2026-04-23 3

page 3 of 3