Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOther· [2018] KEELC 2349 (KLR)

Hassan Shee Sheikh v Amina Shee Yumbe & 2 others [2018] KEELC 2349 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 July 2018
2,415 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to end a land dispute early, ruling that suits raising genuine disputed questions must proceed to a full trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The court dealt with two applications: a Notice of Motion dated 29th September 2016 by the 2nd defendant seeking dismissal of the suit against him, and a Notice of Motion dated 17th November 2016 by the 1st defendant seeking to strike out the plaint as scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process. Both were brought under Order 2 Rule 15(1)(b)(c) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 3, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act. The 2nd defendant, who had purchased a portion of the land from the 1st defendant, argued that the sale agreement of 31st March 2008 between the plaintiff and the 1st defendant was unstamped and thus inadmissible, that the 1st defendant had no confirmed grant of probate when she contracted to sell, that no payments by the plaintiff were proved, and that the claim was time barred. The 1st defendant deponed that the plaintiff never paid the balance of Kshs.125,000 within the stipulated 90 days, so the agreement lapsed. The plaintiff, who has been in occupation and had built a house, opposed both applications, arguing that striking out was draconian, that the applications had been overtaken by the amended plaint, and that triable issues existed. Relying on Yaya Towers Ltd v Trade Bank Ltd, the court held that the power to strike out must be exercised sparingly and only in clear and obvious cases; if a pleading raises a triable issue, the suit must go to trial. Determining the stamping, probate and payment issues on affidavits would amount to a mini-trial and would infringe the plaintiff's Article 50(1) right to a fair hearing. Both applications were dismissed with costs to the plaintiff, with the suit to proceed to trial.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applications to strike out/dismiss the suit were merited

Holding

Both applications were dismissed; the suit raises triable issues best determined at trial

Reasoning

The court reaffirmed that the jurisdiction under Order 2 Rule 15 must be exercised sparingly and in clear and obvious cases. Because the plaintiff is in occupation, seeks prohibitory and mandatory injunctions in the amended plaint, and the 2nd defendant has filed a counter-claim, determining the matters raised (stamping, want of confirmed grant, payment) would amount to a mini-trial on affidavit evidence, which is impermissible except in plain cases.

p. 3
02

Admissibility of the unstamped agreement and validity of sale by a vendor without a confirmed grant

Holding

Not determined at this interlocutory stage; these are triable issues requiring evidence at trial

Reasoning

Counsel for the 2nd defendant argued the agreement was inadmissible for want of stamping and void because the vendor lacked a confirmed grant. The court held that making findings on these matters would amount to deciding the case on affidavit evidence rather than at trial, and declined to do so on the applications.

p. 3
03

Right to a fair hearing under Article 50(1) of the Constitution

Holding

The plaintiff's right to have the dispute decided in a fair hearing weighed against striking out the suit

Reasoning

The court invoked Article 50(1) and Article 25, holding that while a hearing may take the form of affidavit evidence, terminating a suit on affidavits is appropriate only in clear and plain cases, which this was not.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A pleading should only be struck out in clear and obvious cases; if it raises a triable issue the suit must go to trial
  • Determination of a suit by affidavit evidence is reserved for clear and plain cases

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 29th September 2016 by the 2nd defendant is dismissed
  2. 2.The Notice of Motion dated 17th November 2016 by the 1st defendant is dismissed
  3. 3.Costs of the two applications are awarded to the plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 2, Rule 15(1)(b)(c) and (d)
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 3, 3A and 63(e)
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 50(1) and 25

Cases cited (2)

  • Termcotank Kenya Limited –v- Nyoro Construction Co. Ltd
    (2004) eKLR
  • Yaya Towers Limited –v- Trade Bank Limited (in Liquidation)
    (2000) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 2 Rule 15(1)(b)(c) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 3, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Hassan Shee Sheikh v Amina Shee Yumbe & 2 others [2018] KEELC 2349 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2349/eng@2018-07-16

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