A. Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff’s suit as presented.
9.In her further Amended Plaint, the Plaintiff pleads that sometimes in the year 2015, she learnt that her land had been sold by way of auction in Civil Suit Number 226 of 1982 against Wainaina Ng’ang’a, her late grandfather. The Plaintiff’s claim is that she was given the suit property by the late Wainaina Ng’ang’a way back and issued with a title Deed on the 19th November, 1984. She alleges that she has been in possession of the suit property since then.
10.It is the Plaintiff’s case that by the time the High Court case was in Court, the title to the suit property had already been transferred to her. The Plaintiff therefore asserts that if at all the suit property was ever auctioned or sold to any third party, the same was done by way of fraudulent means and misrepresentation. She proceeds to tabulate the particulars of fraud and misrepresentation.
11.The Plaintiff therefore prays for, amongst other orders, a declaration that the sale and transfer of the suit property, Muguga/Nderi/T.8 to the 1st defendant was unlawful and fraudulent and an order of cancelation of the 1st defendant’s title.
12.What the plaintiff is seeking in essence is that this court declares the attachment in execution of the decree in HCCC No. 266 of 1982 unlawful and fraudulent and proceed to cancel the resultant title.
13.The million-dollar question is whether I have the jurisdiction to do what the plaintiff has invited me to do.
14.Jurisdiction as defined in Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Ed.) Vol. 9 means, “the authority which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for decision.”
15.The Black’s Law Dictionary (9th Ed.) on its part defines jurisdiction to mean the Court’s power to entertain, hear and determine a dispute before it.
17.Jurisdiction is an important matter that can be raised at any stage of the proceedings.
18.As I have already pointed out, the Plaintiff prays that this Court declares unlawful, the execution proceedings before the High Court in HCCC No. 226 of 1982.
19.The Supreme Court of Kenya in the case of Republic -vs- Karisa Chengo & 2 others  eKLR concurred with the view of the Court of Appeal in respect of the jurisdiction of the two Specialized Courts created under article 162(1) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 to the effect that the Specialized Courts are of equal rank to the High Court and none, as Mrima, J observed in Constantine Joseph Advocates LL -vs- Attorney General  eKLR, has the jurisdiction to superintend, supervise, direct, shepherd and or review the mistake, real or perceived of the other. Meaning that the decision of the Environment and Land Court or the Employment and Labour Relations Court cannot be the subject of appeal to the High Court and vice versa. None of these Courts is subject to supervision or direction from another.
20.From the foregoing, it goes without saying that this Court does not have the jurisdiction to superintend, supervise, shepherd or review the mistake, real or imagined of the High Court in HCCC No. 266 of 1982. The Plaintiff must go for relief to the same Court that authorized the execution proceedings leading to the sale of the suit property to the 1st Defendant. The Plaintiff’s suit before this court is therefore an abuse of the process of Court. As Mativo J (as he then was) stated in the case of Satya Bhama Gandhi vs Director of Public Prosecutions and 3 Others (2018) eKLR,
21.Having found that this court lacks the jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiff’s suit as presented, there cannot be any basis whatsoever for the continuation of these proceedings any further. It will be a waste of precious judicial time. I must without any further ado terminate these proceedings at this stage by striking out the Plaintiff’s suit in its entirety with costs to the 1st Defendant.
It is so ordered.