Davis Nathan Chelogoi’s long-running legal battle over a prime Nairobi property valued at approximately Ksh1.8 billion has taken a decisive turn after a Milimani court ordered that the case be returned to the original trial magistrate for conclusion.
In a ruling delivered by Chief Magistrate L. O. Onyina, the court directed that the matter be placed back before Hon. Dolphina Alego, who had previously handled the case up to the defence stage before her transfer.
The court emphasized that the case had progressed significantly and should not be reassigned midstream without strict adherence to the law. “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 dispute revolves around ownership of LR No. 18485 (IR 64011) in Lower Kabete, Nairobi, a high-value parcel that has been the subject of multiple legal proceedings across various courts. Earlier rulings, including from the Environment and Land Court, had affirmed businessman Ashok Rupshi Shah as the lawful owner of the property.
Despite those determinations, the matter has persisted through a series of applications and challenges, including criminal proceedings in which Chelogoi and a co-accused face charges such as conspiracy to defraud, forgery and forcible detainer.
Court records show that the prosecution in the criminal case has already closed its case after calling 18 witnesses and presenting more than 130 exhibits. Defence hearings had also begun before the transfer of the trial magistrate.
The court addressed arguments surrounding the handling of the case following the magistrate’s transfer, clarifying that the interim placement of the file before another magistrate did not amount to a formal transfer of jurisdiction. It noted that no succeeding magistrate had complied with the legal requirements under Section 200 of the Criminal Procedure Code to formally take over the case.
As a result, the court held that the matter could still be administratively reassigned back to the original magistrate without violating procedural rules.
The ruling further underscored that litigants have no role in determining which judicial officer hears their case, reaffirming that case allocation is strictly a judicial administrative function.
Additionally, the court noted that a previously raised recusal application had not been formally withdrawn, meaning it remains pending and must be addressed as part of the proceedings before the trial magistrate.
By directing that the case returns to Hon. Alego, the court reinforced the principle that cases at an advanced stage should be concluded by the judicial officer who heard them, unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise.
The decision is expected to fast-track the conclusion of a dispute that has spanned years and multiple court levels, bringing the parties closer to final determination over the high-stakes Ksh1.8 billion property.
