Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedELC Case of 2017 (Meru) - Plaint filed 13.02.2017; Notice of Motion dated 13.02.2017; Preliminary Objection dated 03.04.2017· [2017] KEELC 156 (KLR)

Michael Kungu Kigia v Meru Teachers House Ltd Diretors Edward Dick Mugambi & 12 others [2017] KEELC 156 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
13 December 2017
5,220 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~21 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court dismissed a long-running landlord-tenant claim, ruling it cannot enforce orders made by other Kenyan courts or tribunals.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiff, a former tenant of Meru Town Plot B11/152 Room G2, filed a plaint and Notice of Motion on 13.02.2017 seeking committal of the defendants - directors of Meru Teachers House Ltd - to civil jail for contempt of a raft of orders issued since 1991 by magistrates' courts, the High Court and Business Premises Rent Tribunals, vacation of all cases and defences filed since 1998, his reinstatement to the premises, and damages of Kshs. 1,150,010 for destroyed property. The defendants filed a preliminary objection on 03.04.2017, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction to deal with orders of other courts and tribunals, that the plaintiff had filed dozens of suits between himself and the company, that he had falsely sworn there was no other pending suit, and that the suit was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. They relied on Mukisa Biscuit, the sub-judice and res judicata provisions (Sections 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act) and authorities on abuse of process. Framing two issues - jurisdiction and cause of action - the court found it could not deal with orders of other courts except through the appellate process, noting the plaintiff's pending appeal (Meru HCA 246/13, now Embu HCA 1/2015) following his eviction. The plaintiff could not identify when his cause of action arose; his claim was scattered across some 37-40 cases. The court found him a vexatious litigant, his Motion and plaint scandalous, incompetent and an abuse of court, and dismissed both with costs to the defendants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction to entertain contempt applications and orders issued by other courts and tribunals

Holding

The ELC has no jurisdiction to enforce, review or vacate orders issued by other courts and tribunals not parties to this suit; the plaintiff's remedy is an appeal

Reasoning

The plaintiff sought committal for contempt of orders issued by magistrates' courts, the High Court and tribunals across many finalized or pending files. This court was not privy to those proceedings, and the plaintiff's proper avenue was the pending appeal (Meru HCA 246/13, now Embu HCA 1/2015). As in the Mukisa Biscuit formulation, the objection raised a pure point of law which succeeded.

p. 7
02

Whether the plaintiff established a cause of action

Holding

No cause of action was established; the claim was scattered across a myriad of cases and the plaintiff was a vexatious litigant

Reasoning

For a cause of action a plaintiff must establish a right and its violation. The plaintiff could not pinpoint when his cause of action arose, as his claim was dispersed in about 37-40 finalized or pending cases. His verifying affidavit falsely denied other pending suits, rendering the suit scandalous, incompetent and an abuse of the court process.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection raises a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct; it cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if the exercise of judicial discretion is sought
  • A court cannot deal with issues pending before other courts except through the appellate process
  • A cause of action requires establishment of a right and demonstration that the right has been violated
  • Swearing a verifying affidavit that there is no other suit pending while numerous suits exist between the parties is an abuse of court process

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Notice of Motion dated 13.02.2017 dismissed
  2. 2.Suit (Plaint) dismissed with costs to the defendants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 6 (rule of sub-judice)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 7 (res judicata)

Cases cited (9)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs West End Distributors Ltd
    (1969) E.A 696
  • Leonard Onyoncha versus Post Bank Credit Ltd
    Kisumu HCC No. 396 of 2000 (Unreported)
  • Samuel Karuga Koinange versus Bullion Bank Ltd
    Nairobi HCC No. 951 of 2000 (Unreported)
  • Standard Chartered Bank Ltd
    Kisumu HCC No. 120 of 2003 (Unreported)
  • LILIAN S VERSUS CALTEX (K) LTD
    [1986 – 1989] E.A. 305
  • Succession Cause No. 40 of 2006
  • Civil Appeal No. 324 of 2005
  • Misc. Application No. 93 of 2013 (JR)
  • Jack and Jill Supper Market original applicant versus V.M Ngunjiri original respondents
    Civil Appeal No. 710 of 2009
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the ELC Act; challenged by preliminary objection for lack of jurisdiction

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Michael Kungu Kigia v Meru Teachers House Ltd Diretors Edward Dick Mugambi & 12 others [2017] KEELC 156 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). ELC Case of 2017 (Meru) - Plaint filed 13.02.2017; Notice of Motion dated 13.02.2017; Preliminary Objection dated 03.04.2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/156/eng@2017-12-13

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.