DNK International A Nairobi court has directed that the prolonged land dispute between businessman Ashok Rupshi Shah and Davis Nathan Chelogoi be returned to the trial magistrate who had initially handled it.
Chief Magistrate L. O. Onyina, sitting at the Milimani Magistrate Court, ruled that the matter should be heard and concluded by Hon. Dolphina Alego.
The court noted that the case had already advanced to the defence hearing stage and it would be improper to reassign it without following the correct legal procedure.
The decision was based on Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which sets out how cases should proceed when a magistrate is transferred.
The court stated that a new magistrate can only take over after meeting strict requirements, including informing the accused of their rights.
According to the record, no magistrate had formally taken over the case after Hon. Alego’s transfer.
This means the matter could still be reassigned administratively. The court added that transitional mentions before another magistrate did not amount to a formal transfer.
The dispute concerns ownership of LR No. 18485 (IR 64011) in Lower Kabete, Nairobi. Past rulings from the Environment and Land Court and the Court of Appeal have already affirmed that the property belongs to Ashok Rupshi Shah. The Court of Appeal also issued orders barring interference with the land registry records.
Alongside the civil case, criminal charges have been filed against Davis Nathan Chelogoi and a second accused person. The charges include conspiracy to defraud, forgery, and forcible detainer under the Penal Code.
The prosecution has already closed its case after calling 18 witnesses and presenting more than 130 documentary exhibits. Defence hearings had begun before the trial magistrate was transferred.
The court dismissed objections that the case had been improperly transferred, stating that case allocation is an administrative function of the judiciary. Parties cannot choose which judicial officer hears their case.
It also noted that a recusal application filed earlier had not been formally withdrawn and therefore remained pending. This further supported the need for the original trial magistrate to continue handling the matter.
The ruling reinforced the principle that cases at an advanced stage should not be restarted or reassigned unnecessarily, as this could undermine fairness and efficiency. Citing appellate decisions, the court warned that failure to comply with Section 200 can make proceedings void.
With the case now sent back to Hon. Alego, it is expected to move toward conclusion after years of litigation across multiple courts.
