The question of whether Magistrates' Courts are vested with jurisdiction to adjudicate claims of adverse possession has elicited divergent judicial interpretations. Two main schools of thought have emerged. One contends that the magistrates' courts have jurisdiction while the second one disputes this position and places the jurisdiction exclusively under the Environment and Land Court. A. JUSTIFICATION OF THE COMPETENCE OF MAGISTRATES' COURTS IN ADVERSE POSSESSION CLAIMS The first contends that the Magistrates' Courts do indeed have jurisdiction, relying on section 26(3 ) and (4) of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011, alongside section 9 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 2015 . This perspective posits that duly gazetted magistrates may hear land-related disputes, including adverse possession, as long as they fall within their prescribed pecuniary limits. Section 26(3) of the Environment and Land Court Act provides that: ...
For some time now, I have been hesitant to write a formal commentary on the issue of whether the next General Election should be held in 2026 or 2027. This debate was sparked around April this year by the esteemed counsel, Mr. Willis Otieno, and numerous debates have since ensued online and in mainstream media. There appears to be confusion, and nobody seems to offer any remarkably well-thought-out counterargument. In fact, this issue is immensely disturbing to the point that a petition in Owiso & 2 others v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & another; Law Society of Kenya & 8 others (Interested Parties) [2025] KESC 52 (KLR) had to be lodged at the Supreme Court seeking to find answers as to the appropriateness of this argument advanced by Mr. Otieno. A ruling was delivered on the 15 th of August 2025 on this matter, and the Court clarified that its jurisdiction under Article 163(3)(a) of the Constitution is "exclusive ...