Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEmbu ELC Suit (Amended Plaint dated 30 August 2016; Preliminary Objection dated 15 January 2018)· [2018] KEELC 2510 (KLR)

Stephen Kithinji Nyaga & Boniface Kimathi Nyaga v Joseph Muchangi Nthiga, David Muriuki Nthiga & Pheris Mutitu Nthiga (Environment & Land Case 60 of 2016) [2018] KEELC 2510 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
14 June 2018
2,211 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A pending application to revoke a succession grant in Kenya does not stop the Environment and Land Court from hearing disputes over land covered by that grant.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a plaint dated 30th August 2016, as amended on 15th January 2018, the Plaintiffs, registered proprietors of Title Nos. Gaturi/Nembure/10965 and 10966 (derived from their father's registration following a confirmed grant in Embu High Court Succession Cause No. 163 of 2005), sued the Defendants for an eviction order, general damages and costs. The 1st and 2nd Defendants contended that the Plaintiffs' father had fraudulently acquired the original parcel, Gaturi/Nembure/1382, from their common grandfather's estate, and raised a preliminary objection dated 15th January 2018 on jurisdiction. They argued that the parties were litigating over the same land in the succession cause, where a revocation application with stay orders was pending, and that the Environment and Land Court could not sit on appeal over the Succession Court or reopen the distribution of a deceased's estate. The Plaintiffs maintained the court had jurisdiction, having been registered on the confirmed grant since 2006. The court applied Mukisa Biscuits and the jurisdiction jurisprudence in Owners of Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' and Samuel Kamau Macharia, and traced the ELC's jurisdiction to Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. It held that the Plaintiffs were not claiming as beneficiaries or creditors of the deceased's estate but as registered proprietors, so the ELC was not encroaching on the Succession Court's mandate, and the pending revocation application could not deprive it of jurisdiction. The preliminary objection was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Preliminary objection on jurisdiction

Holding

The objection raised a pure point of law and could be determined as a preliminary objection, but it failed on its merits

Reasoning

Relying on Mukisa Biscuits, the court held the objection was a pure point of law. However, the ELC's jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) and section 13 of the ELC Act covers disputes relating to land title, tenure and instruments granting interests in land. The Plaintiffs were not claiming as beneficiaries or creditors of a deceased estate; they sued as registered proprietors. Hence the ELC was not usurping the Succession Court's jurisdiction.

p. 4
02

Effect of pending revocation of grant proceedings

Holding

Pending revocation proceedings do not oust the ELC's jurisdiction; a stay may be prudent but is distinct from lack of jurisdiction

Reasoning

The Defendants argued the ELC could not sit on appeal over the Succession Court or vary its decision. The court agreed that distribution questions belong to the Succession Court but noted the grant had not been revoked and the Plaintiffs claimed as registered proprietors. The succession court may later issue directions affecting current titles, but the pendency of revocation proceedings does not strip the ELC of jurisdiction.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The pendency of an application for revocation of a grant in the succession court does not deprive the Environment and Land Court of its jurisdiction over land disputes concerning titles derived from that grant
  • A court must determine jurisdiction immediately and down tools once it finds it lacks jurisdiction

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Defendants' notice of preliminary objection dated and filed on 15th January 2018 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the preliminary objection awarded to the Plaintiffs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 162(2)(b)
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 260
  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Articles 42, 69 and 70
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 13
  • Environment and Land Court Act (Cap 12A)Section 2
  • Land Act 2012general
  • Land Registration Actgeneral
  • Environmental Management and Coordination Actgeneral
  • Law of Succession Act (Cap 160)general

Cases cited (3)

  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd Vs West End Distributors Ltd
    [1969] EA 696
  • Owners of Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' Vs Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    [1989] KLR 1
  • Samuel Kamau Macharia & Another Vs Kenya Commercial Bank & 2 Others
    [2012] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011 (section 13)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Stephen Kithinji Nyaga & Boniface Kimathi Nyaga v Joseph Muchangi Nthiga, David Muriuki Nthiga & Pheris Mutitu Nthiga (Environment & Land Case 60 of 2016) [2018] KEELC 2510 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Embu ELC Suit (Amended Plaint dated 30 August 2016; Preliminary Objection dated 15 January 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2510/eng@2018-06-14

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