Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the judgment· [2019] KEELC 773 (KLR)

Elijah Nderitu Gachaga v Francis Gakuu Gachaga & 2 others [2019] KEELC 773 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
14 November 2019
4,595 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~18 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court dismissed a land suit because the plaintiff's limited 'ad colligenda' grant only allowed him to preserve the estate, not to sue.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff, one of the sons of the late Samson Gachaga Gakuu (died 11/9/1990), sued his brothers and a nephew in the Environment and Land Court at Murang'a seeking cancellation of titles to LOC14/GAKURWE/359 and LOC14/GAKURWE/930, rectification of the register to share the land among the three houses of the deceased, and a declaration that the Defendants hold the lands under a constructive trust. His claim rested on a grant of letters of administration ad colligenda bona issued on 6/12/1995 in Nairobi High Court Succession Cause No. 2719/95. The Defendants raised a preliminary objection that the Plaintiff, holding only a limited grant, lacked locus standi to sue. The court, applying Mukhisa Biscuit and Oraro v Mbaja, found the objection a pure point of law requiring no investigation of facts or exercise of discretion. Relying on section 54 and section 67(1) of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 36 of the Probate and Administration Rules, and following Morjaria v Abdalla and Julian Adoyo Ongunga, the court held that an ad colligenda grant is confined to collecting and preserving the estate; the right grant for litigation is either a full grant or a limited grant ad litem under paragraph 14 of the Fifth Schedule. The Plaintiff's grant was not tailored to permit filing suit and had not been rectified, so he lacked locus and the proceedings were a nullity. The court found no conflict between Morjaria and Peter Owade Ogwang, distinguished Martha Ndiro Odero, and held that its jurisdiction was not ousted since the issue was locus, not revocation of a grant. The preliminary objection was allowed, the suit dismissed with costs to the Defendants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a grant ad colligenda bona confers locus standi to sue

Holding

No. The grant is limited to collecting, getting in, receiving and preserving the estate; the Plaintiff's grant was not tailored to include filing suit and was never rectified, so he lacked locus and the suit was a nullity

Reasoning

Section 54 of the Law of Succession Act and section 67(1), read with Rule 36 of the Probate and Administration Rules, confine an ad colligenda grant to collection and preservation of assets of a perishable or precarious nature where a full grant cannot be made at once. Filing suit requires either a full grant or a limited grant ad litem under paragraph 14 of the Fifth Schedule. The wording of the grant is decisive: the Plaintiff's grant contained no language permitting institution of suit and there was no evidence of rectification. Following Morjaria v Abdalla and Julian Adoyo Ongunga, the Plaintiff was not clothed with locus, rendering all proceedings a nullity per Macfoy v United Africa Co.

p. 5
02

Whether the objection was a true preliminary objection on a point of law

Holding

Yes. It required no investigation of facts or exercise of discretion

Reasoning

Applying Mukhisa Biscuit and Oraro v Mbaja, the court held that the question whether the Plaintiff's grant empowered him to sue was determinable from the pleadings and the record without evidence. Although the facts in plaint and defence were disputed, the objection itself rested purely on the terms of the grant, a matter of law capable of disposing of the suit without calling for disputed facts or judicial discretion.

p. 5
03

Whether the ELC's jurisdiction was ousted because the grant can only be challenged in the Succession Court

Holding

No. The issue was characterised as one of locus to bring suit, not an impugning or revocation of the grant

Reasoning

The Plaintiff argued that sections 47 and 48 of the Law of Succession Act vest jurisdiction over grants in the High Family Court. The court held the objection did not seek to strike out, impugn or revoke the grant but raised the antecedent question of whether the Plaintiff had capacity to sue in the ELC. Characterised that way, the court's jurisdiction was not ousted, though it noted revocation of the grant belongs to the Succession Court.

p. 5
04

Whether Morjaria v Abdalla and Peter Owade Ogwang are in conflict

Holding

No. Both decisions agree that an ad colligenda grant is not the appropriate grant to confer locus to sue; their differing outcomes turned on grants specifically tailored for suit or appeal

Reasoning

The Plaintiff urged the court to elect between the two Court of Appeal decisions. The court found no conflict: in Morjaria the grant was expressly limited to filing an appeal and substitution was allowed in an ongoing case; in Owade Ogwang a chamber summons had already been allowed by a judge of concurrent jurisdiction. Both benches reiterated the point of law that ad colligenda grants do not clothe a party with locus to sue unless specifically stated in the grant.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A grant of letters of administration ad colligenda bona is limited to collection and preservation of the estate and does not confer locus standi to institute a suit unless expressly tailored to include the filing of suit
  • Locus standi is not a technicality; proceedings instituted by a party without it are a nullity
  • A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law, not blurred with disputed facts

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objection is allowed as merited
  2. 2.The suit is declared incompetent and is dismissed
  3. 3.The Defendants are awarded the costs of the suit

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Law of Succession Act (Cap 160)Section 54
  • Law of Succession Act (Cap 160)Section 67(1)
  • Law of Succession Act (Cap 160)Sections 47 and 48
  • Law of Succession Act (Cap 160)Section 69 and paragraph 14 of the Fifth Schedule
  • Probate and Administration RulesRule 36
  • Probate and Administration RulesRule 10 of the Fifth Schedule; paragraph 14 of the Fifth Schedule; Form 47
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 48

Cases cited (13)

  • Morjaria Vs Abdalla
    (1982-84) EKLR; [1984] eKLR
  • Julian Adoyo Ongunga & Anor Vs Francis Kiberenge Bondeva
    CA 119 of 2015; [2016] eKLR
  • Peter Owade Ogwang Vs Jared Obiero Ouya
    (2014) KLR; (2014) eKLR
  • Trouistick Union International Vs Jane Mbeyu
    (1993) KLR 230
  • Mary Wangui Karanja & Anor Vs John Kioi
    ELC 83 of 2010
  • D T Dobie & Co Kenya Limited Vs Muchina
    (1982) KLR 1
  • Mukhisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd. -v- West End Distributors Limited
    (1969) EA 696
  • Oraro vs. Mbaja
    (2005) I KLR 141
  • Nitia Properties Limited -v- Jagjit Singh Kalsi & Another
    C.A. No. 132 of 1937
  • Rajesh Pranjivan Chudasama vs. Sailesh Pranjivan Chudasama
    [2014] eKLR
  • Jonathan Wafula Mbinga -vs- Kabaka Wabwile Wekesa
    [2004] eKLR
  • Martha Ndiro Odero (suing as the administrator and personal representative of the estate of Willy Patrick Ochieng Ndiro (Deceased) -Vs- Come Cons Africa Limited
    (2015) eKLR
  • Macfoy v United Africa Co. Ltd.
    [1961] 3 ALL ER 1169
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (suit concerning title to land of a deceased estate); the court found its jurisdiction was not ousted

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (17)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Elijah Nderitu Gachaga v Francis Gakuu Gachaga & 2 others [2019] KEELC 773 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/773/eng@2019-11-14

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