REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT BUSIA
ELC EPA NO. E003 OF 2026
BENARD WAFULA MAASAI SIKUKU ……………….. 1 ST APPELLANT
ANNE CHEBET ……………..……………………..……… 2 ND APPELLANT
SILVESTER SIAGO …………….……..…………….…… 3 RD APPELLANT
MAURICE NYONGESA alias MANMO …..….…..….. 4 TH APPELLANT
= VERSUS =
WAFULA WEKESA NAKITARE aka
DUNCAN WAFULA WEKESA ……………………..... 1 ST RESPONDENT
NOAH NDOMBI …..……………………………………. 2 ND RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. On 20 th May 2026, this Court directed the parties to file written submissions on whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this appeal arising from the judgment of the Small Claims Court at Malaba.
2. The issue was equally raised by the Respondent in paragraph 3 of their Replying Affidavit dated 26 th May 2026, wherein it was contended that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal.
3. I have considered the Memorandum of Appeal dated 10 th April 2026, the replying affidavit, the rival submissions and, importantly, I have called for and perused the original pleadings filed before the Small Claims Court.
4. The Statement of Claim dated 13 th February 2026 discloses that the claimant (now the Respondent) sought payment of Kshs.1,000,000 being the alleged value of trees said to have been unlawfully sold by the defendants (now the Appellants) to timber dealers.
5. The relief sought was purely monetary compensation, which falls within the ambit of commercial disputes before the Small Claims Court.
6. Therefore, the question that arises is whether an appeal arising from such proceedings properly falls within the appellate jurisdiction of this Court.
Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine Appeals emanating from the Small Claims Court
7. Jurisdiction is everything. It is the authority donated by the Constitution or statute to a Court to hear and determine a dispute. Without jurisdiction, a Court must immediately down its tools.
8. In the case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” -v- Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KECA 48 (KLR) , Nyarangi JA defined the meaning of jurisdiction as:
“By jurisdiction is meant the authority which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognisance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. The limits of this authority are imposed by the statute, charter, or commission under which the Court is constituted, and may be extended or restricted by the like means. If no restriction or limit is imposed the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited. A limitation may be either as to the kind and nature of the actions and matters of which the particular Court has cognisance, or as to the area over which the jurisdiction shall extend, or it may partake of both these characteristics. If the jurisdiction of an inferior Court or tribunal (including an arbitrator) depends on the existence of a particular state of facts, the Court or tribunal must inquire into the existence of the facts in order to decide whether it has jurisdiction; but, except where the Court or tribunal has been given power to determine conclusively whether the facts exist. Where a Court takes it upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing. Jurisdiction must be acquired before judgement is given”
9. Further, in above case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” -v- Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KECA 48 (KLR) (supra) the Court stated that:
“Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a Court has no power to make one more step. Where a Court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence.”
10. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Macharia & another -v- Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 others [2012] KESC 8 (KLR) held that:
“A Court’s jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a Court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law”
11. From the above-cited authorities, this Court can only exercise the jurisdiction expressly conferred upon it by the Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act .
12. Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution established the Environment and Land Court, which provides that:
“ Parliament shall establish Courts with the status of the High Court to hear and determine disputes relating to the environment and the use and occupation of, and title to, land .”
13. In the case of Ahaya -v- Isaya [2025] KEHC 19225 (KLR) , the Court stated that:
“ The Environment and Land Court’s exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction is outlined in article 162 (2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya.”
14. Further, section 13 (2) of the Environment and Land Court states that:
“ In exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution, the Court shall have power to hear and determine disputes ―
(a) relating to environmental planning and protection, climate issues, land use planning, title, tenure, boundaries, rates, rents, valuations, mining, minerals and other natural resources;
(b) relating to compulsory acquisition of land;
(c) relating to land administration and management; (d) relating to public, private and community land and contracts, choses in action or other instruments granting any enforceable interests in land; and
(e) any other dispute relating to environment and land”
15. In applying those principles to the present matter, I have carefully examined the pleadings before the Small Claims Court. The cause of action pleaded was compensation for the alleged sale of trees. The claimant quantified his loss at Kshs.1,000,000 and prayed for judgment for that amount.
16. The cause of action was therefore one founded on an alleged wrongful sale or conversion of trees and the resultant monetary loss. It was essentially a claim for damages, which squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Act .
17. Although the Memorandum of Appeal repeatedly alleges that ownership of land was in issue before the trial Court, an appellate Court is bound by the record of the proceedings and pleadings before the subordinate Court. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the manner in which an appellant frames grounds of appeal. The true nature of the dispute is discerned from the pleadings and the judgment appealed against.
18. It is therefore evident that the appeal does not arise from a dispute concerning the environment, the use or occupation of land, or title to land within the meaning of Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act .
19. The Small Claims Court Act reinforces this position. Section 38 thereof provides that:
“A person aggrieved by the decision or order of the Court may appeal to the High Court on matters of law.”
20. The Act does not confer appellate jurisdiction upon the Environment and Land Court. Where Parliament intended appeals to lie to the specialized Courts, it has expressly said so in other statutes. In the absence of such an express provision in the Small Claims Court Act , appeals from the Small Claims Court lie to the High Court.
21. The High Court and the Environment and Land Court are Courts of equal status, but they do not exercise concurrent jurisdiction. Each exercise only the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the Constitution and statute. Consequently, this Court cannot assume appellate jurisdiction merely because the subject matter incidentally involves trees standing on land.
22. Based on the above discussion, I find that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal.
DISPOSITION
23. Having found that this Court lacks jurisdiction, it would be inappropriate to consider the merits of the twelve grounds of appeal contained in the Memorandum of Appeal and the Notice of Motion dated 18 th May 2026. Any determination towards that would be made without jurisdiction and would therefore be a nullity.
24. Accordingly, I make the following orders:
a) It is hereby declared that the Environment and Land Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the present appeal arising from the judgment of the Small Claims Court at Malaba delivered on 31 st March 2026.
b) The Memorandum of Appeal dated 10 th April 2026 is hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction.
c) The costs are awarded to the Respondents
Ruling dated, signed and delivered in open Court on this 28 th day of July 2026.
C. MUGAMBI
JUDGE
28 th JULY 2026
BUSIA ELC EPA NO. E003 OF 2026 – RULING Page 1 of 13
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT BUSIA
ELC EPA NO. E003 OF 2026
BENARD WAFULA MAASAI SIKUKU ……………….. 1 ST APPELLANT
ANNE CHEBET ……………..……………………..……… 2 ND APPELLANT
SILVESTER SIAGO …………….……..…………….…… 3 RD APPELLANT
MAURICE NYONGESA alias MANMO …..….…..….. 4 TH APPELLANT
= VERSUS =
WAFULA WEKESA NAKITARE aka
DUNCAN WAFULA WEKESA ……………………..... 1 ST RESPONDENT
NOAH NDOMBI …..……………………………………. 2 ND RESPONDENT
R U L I N G
1. On 20 th May 2026, this Court directed the parties to file written submissions on whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine this appeal arising from the judgment of the Small Claims Court at Malaba.
2. The issue was equally raised by the Respondent in paragraph 3 of their Replying Affidavit dated 26 th May 2026, wherein it was contended that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal.
3. I have considered the Memorandum of Appeal dated 10 th April 2026, the replying affidavit, the rival submissions and, importantly, I have called for and perused the original pleadings filed before the Small Claims Court.
4. The Statement of Claim dated 13 th February 2026 discloses that the claimant (now the Respondent) sought payment of Kshs.1,000,000 being the alleged value of trees said to have been unlawfully sold by the defendants (now the Appellants) to timber dealers.
5. The relief sought was purely monetary compensation, which falls within the ambit of commercial disputes before the Small Claims Court.
6. Therefore, the question that arises is whether an appeal arising from such proceedings properly falls within the appellate jurisdiction of this Court.
Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine Appeals emanating from the Small Claims Court
7. Jurisdiction is everything. It is the authority donated by the Constitution or statute to a Court to hear and determine a dispute. Without jurisdiction, a Court must immediately down its tools.
8. In the case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” -v- Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KECA 48 (KLR) , Nyarangi JA defined the meaning of jurisdiction as:
“By jurisdiction is meant the authority which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognisance of matters presented in a formal way for its decision. The limits of this authority are imposed by the statute, charter, or commission under which the Court is constituted, and may be extended or restricted by the like means. If no restriction or limit is imposed the jurisdiction is said to be unlimited. A limitation may be either as to the kind and nature of the actions and matters of which the particular Court has cognisance, or as to the area over which the jurisdiction shall extend, or it may partake of both these characteristics. If the jurisdiction of an inferior Court or tribunal (including an arbitrator) depends on the existence of a particular state of facts, the Court or tribunal must inquire into the existence of the facts in order to decide whether it has jurisdiction; but, except where the Court or tribunal has been given power to determine conclusively whether the facts exist. Where a Court takes it upon itself to exercise a jurisdiction which it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing. Jurisdiction must be acquired before judgement is given”
9. Further, in above case of Owners of the Motor Vessel “Lillian S” -v- Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd [1989] KECA 48 (KLR) (supra) the Court stated that:
“Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a Court has no power to make one more step. Where a Court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence.”
10. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Macharia & another -v- Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 2 others [2012] KESC 8 (KLR) held that:
“A Court’s jurisdiction flows from either the Constitution or legislation or both. Thus, a Court of law can only exercise jurisdiction as conferred by the constitution or other written law. It cannot arrogate to itself jurisdiction exceeding that which is conferred upon it by law”
11. From the above-cited authorities, this Court can only exercise the jurisdiction expressly conferred upon it by the Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act .
12. Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution established the Environment and Land Court, which provides that:
“ Parliament shall establish Courts with the status of the High Court to hear and determine disputes relating to the environment and the use and occupation of, and title to, land .”
13. In the case of Ahaya -v- Isaya [2025] KEHC 19225 (KLR) , the Court stated that:
“ The Environment and Land Court’s exclusive subject-matter jurisdiction is outlined in article 162 (2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya.”
14. Further, section 13 (2) of the Environment and Land Court states that:
“ In exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution, the Court shall have power to hear and determine disputes ―
(a) relating to environmental planning and protection, climate issues, land use planning, title, tenure, boundaries, rates, rents, valuations, mining, minerals and other natural resources;
(b) relating to compulsory acquisition of land;
(c) relating to land administration and management; (d) relating to public, private and community land and contracts, choses in action or other instruments granting any enforceable interests in land; and
(e) any other dispute relating to environment and land”
15. In applying those principles to the present matter, I have carefully examined the pleadings before the Small Claims Court. The cause of action pleaded was compensation for the alleged sale of trees. The claimant quantified his loss at Kshs.1,000,000 and prayed for judgment for that amount.
16. The cause of action was therefore one founded on an alleged wrongful sale or conversion of trees and the resultant monetary loss. It was essentially a claim for damages, which squarely falls within the jurisdiction of the Small Claims Act .
17. Although the Memorandum of Appeal repeatedly alleges that ownership of land was in issue before the trial Court, an appellate Court is bound by the record of the proceedings and pleadings before the subordinate Court. Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by the manner in which an appellant frames grounds of appeal. The true nature of the dispute is discerned from the pleadings and the judgment appealed against.
18. It is therefore evident that the appeal does not arise from a dispute concerning the environment, the use or occupation of land, or title to land within the meaning of Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act .
19. The Small Claims Court Act reinforces this position. Section 38 thereof provides that:
“A person aggrieved by the decision or order of the Court may appeal to the High Court on matters of law.”
20. The Act does not confer appellate jurisdiction upon the Environment and Land Court. Where Parliament intended appeals to lie to the specialized Courts, it has expressly said so in other statutes. In the absence of such an express provision in the Small Claims Court Act , appeals from the Small Claims Court lie to the High Court.
21. The High Court and the Environment and Land Court are Courts of equal status, but they do not exercise concurrent jurisdiction. Each exercise only the jurisdiction conferred upon it by the Constitution and statute. Consequently, this Court cannot assume appellate jurisdiction merely because the subject matter incidentally involves trees standing on land.
22. Based on the above discussion, I find that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present appeal.
DISPOSITION
23. Having found that this Court lacks jurisdiction, it would be inappropriate to consider the merits of the twelve grounds of appeal contained in the Memorandum of Appeal and the Notice of Motion dated 18 th May 2026. Any determination towards that would be made without jurisdiction and would therefore be a nullity.
24. Accordingly, I make the following orders:
a) It is hereby declared that the Environment and Land Court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine the present appeal arising from the judgment of the Small Claims Court at Malaba delivered on 31 st March 2026.
b) The Memorandum of Appeal dated 10 th April 2026 is hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction.
c) The costs are awarded to the Respondents
Ruling dated, signed and delivered in open Court on this 28 th day of July 2026.
C. MUGAMBI
JUDGE
28 th JULY 2026
BUSIA ELC EPA NO. E003 OF 2026 – RULING Page 1 of 13