By Andrew Kariuki

A Nairobi court has ordered that a long-running and highly contested land dispute involving businessman Ashok Rupshi Shah and Davis Nathan Chelogoi be returned to the original trial magistrate for hearing and determination, marking a significant procedural development in a case that has spanned multiple courts over the years.

In a ruling delivered by Chief Magistrate L. O. Onyina at the Milimani Magistrate Court, the court emphasized the importance of judicial continuity, directing that the matter be concluded by Hon. Dolphina Alego, the magistrate before whom the case had substantially progressed.

The court found that the case had already reached the defence hearing stage and that it would be improper to reassign it without following due legal process. “It is better that it be heard and concluded by the trial magistrate before whom it commenced and reached defence hearing stage,” the court ruled.

The ruling was grounded in Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which governs how cases should proceed when a magistrate is transferred. The court underscored that a succeeding magistrate can only assume jurisdiction after complying with strict procedural requirements, including informing the accused of their rights.

According to the court record, no magistrate had formally assumed jurisdiction over the case following the transfer of Hon. Alego, meaning the matter could still be reassigned administratively. The court further clarified that transitional mentions before another magistrate did not amount to a formal transfer of the case.

The dispute is part of a broader legal battle that has traversed various courts, including the Environment and Land Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal. Central to the dispute is ownership of land identified as LR No. 18485 (IR 64011) located in Lower Kabete, Nairobi.

Previous court findings have already affirmed ownership of the property in favour of Ashok Rupshi Shah, with the Environment and Land Court issuing a judgment in July 2022 to that effect. The Court of Appeal also issued restraining orders barring interference with land registry records related to the property.

Parallel to the civil proceedings, criminal charges have been brought against Davis Nathan Chelogoi and another accused person. Court documents show that the accused face multiple counts, including conspiracy to defraud, forgery, and forcible detainer under the Penal Code.

The prosecution case in the criminal matter has already been concluded, with 18 witnesses testifying and over 130 documentary exhibits presented before the court. Defence hearings had also commenced prior to the transfer of the trial magistrate.

The court also addressed procedural objections raised by counsel, including claims that the case had been improperly transferred. It held that case allocation is an administrative function of the judiciary and not subject to parties’ preferences, noting that litigants cannot choose which judicial officer presides over their case.

Additionally, the court observed that an application for recusal previously raised in the matter had not been formally withdrawn and therefore remained pending determination, reinforcing the need for the original trial magistrate to resume conduct of the case.

The ruling reiterates a key judicial principle that cases at an advanced stage should not be restarted or reassigned unnecessarily, as doing so may compromise fairness and efficiency. The court relied on appellate jurisprudence to stress that failure to comply with Section 200 can render proceedings a nullity.

With the matter now directed back to Hon. Alego, the case is expected to proceed toward conclusion after years of litigation marked by multiple applications, appeals and procedural disputes.

The decision signals a push toward finality in the dispute, reinforcing the judiciary’s position that due process, consistency and adherence to procedural law remain central to the administration of justice.