RULING
1. This matter came for directions on a certificate of urgency on 8/5/2026 and
the court directed the petitioner/applicant to serve the respondents and
interested party forthwith for interpartes directions today to address the court
on the question of jurisdiction of this court, considering the nature of the
claim by the petitioner and the reliefs sought.
2. The petitioner’s counsel is before court this morning although he has not
served the respondents and the interested party with the petition and the
application for conservatory orders.
3. The court has asked counsel to address the court on the questions of
jurisdiction of this court to hear and determine the petition, in view of the
provisions of Article 162(2) (b) of the Constitution, considering that the
petitioner seeks reliefs, among others the right to occupy the house in which
she is in occupation and having rented it from the interested party.
4. She claims that when she was invaded by the 1 st and 2 nd respondent’s agents
who wanted to evict her on the ground that the house belongs to the 1 st
respondent, she contacted her landlord the interested party herein who
disowned the eviction and claimed that the house belongs and or is owned
by him. No doubt, there are issues of the right to occupy and ownership
rights of the interested party herein being advanced.
5. That being the case, and in view of the jurisdiction of the Environment and
Land Court as conferred by Article 162 (2) (b) of the constitution, which is
to hear and determine disputes relating to the environment and the use and
occupation of and title to land; as read with Article 165(5) (b) of the
Constitution expressly ousting jurisdiction of the High Court from hearing
and determining disputes exclusively reserved for the Supreme Court and
the courts contemplated in Article 162(2) of the constitution.
6. I am persuaded that this court is devoid of jurisdiction to hear and determine
the petition, whether it is seeking to declare rights of occupation or to quash
the decision to evict the petitioner from the premises being House No. 950,
Phase 6 Block 91 NHC Langata, which the petitioner claims to have leased
from the interested party herein Mr. Lucas Oluoch since 2021.
7. Therefore, as to what orders this court should make, having found that this
court is devoid of jurisdiction, I down my tools and direct that the petition be
transferred to the Environment and Land Court the court of equal status with
the High Court for further directions in the matter. From the High Court
end, the file is closed.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nairobi virtually this 11 th Day of May, 2026
R.E ABURILI
JUDGE
1. This matter came for directions on a certificate of urgency on 8/5/2026 and
the court directed the petitioner/applicant to serve the respondents and
interested party forthwith for interpartes directions today to address the court
on the question of jurisdiction of this court, considering the nature of the
claim by the petitioner and the reliefs sought.
2. The petitioner’s counsel is before court this morning although he has not
served the respondents and the interested party with the petition and the
application for conservatory orders.
3. The court has asked counsel to address the court on the questions of
jurisdiction of this court to hear and determine the petition, in view of the
provisions of Article 162(2) (b) of the Constitution, considering that the
petitioner seeks reliefs, among others the right to occupy the house in which
she is in occupation and having rented it from the interested party.
4. She claims that when she was invaded by the 1 st and 2 nd respondent’s agents
who wanted to evict her on the ground that the house belongs to the 1 st
respondent, she contacted her landlord the interested party herein who
disowned the eviction and claimed that the house belongs and or is owned
by him. No doubt, there are issues of the right to occupy and ownership
rights of the interested party herein being advanced.
5. That being the case, and in view of the jurisdiction of the Environment and
Land Court as conferred by Article 162 (2) (b) of the constitution, which is
to hear and determine disputes relating to the environment and the use and
occupation of and title to land; as read with Article 165(5) (b) of the
Constitution expressly ousting jurisdiction of the High Court from hearing
and determining disputes exclusively reserved for the Supreme Court and
the courts contemplated in Article 162(2) of the constitution.
6. I am persuaded that this court is devoid of jurisdiction to hear and determine
the petition, whether it is seeking to declare rights of occupation or to quash
the decision to evict the petitioner from the premises being House No. 950,
Phase 6 Block 91 NHC Langata, which the petitioner claims to have leased
from the interested party herein Mr. Lucas Oluoch since 2021.
7. Therefore, as to what orders this court should make, having found that this
court is devoid of jurisdiction, I down my tools and direct that the petition be
transferred to the Environment and Land Court the court of equal status with
the High Court for further directions in the matter. From the High Court
end, the file is closed.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nairobi virtually this 11 th Day of May, 2026
R.E ABURILI
JUDGE