Benard Otieno Okore v Rusanel Akeyo Oinga & 2 others [2019] KEELC 851 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A grandson suing over his grandfather's land lost because no one had obtained a grant of letters of administration, so the court struck out the case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the plaintiff had locus standi to sue on behalf of the estate of the deceased Okore Matu
The plaintiff had no locus standi as neither he nor the defendants held a grant in respect of the estate
Although the plaintiff claimed letters of administration ad litem in submissions, his own testimony was that no succession cause over the deceased's estate had been concluded and the defendants likewise had no grant. Following Trouistik Union International v Jane Mbeyu and the authorities on the role of legal representatives, the court held that the estate vests only in a legal representative holding a grant, and the plaintiff, lacking one, could not mount the suit.
Whether the Environment and Land Court had jurisdiction over a dispute predominantly concerning distribution of a deceased's estate
The court lacked jurisdiction; the dispute fell within the jurisdiction of the Probate and Administration Court
Relying on Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and the Supreme Court decision in R v Karisa Chengo, the court held that a dispute predominantly hinged on distribution of a deceased's estate belongs to the probate and administration jurisdiction of the High Court, not the Environment and Land Court. Following Owners of Motor Vessel Lilian 'S', a court without jurisdiction cannot take any further step.
Whether the jurisdictional objection raised for the first time in submissions could be entertained
Yes - the challenge arose in submissions but the court was bound to dispose of it because jurisdiction goes to the root
The court noted that the objection was raised for the first time in the defendants' written submissions, contrary to the practice of raising jurisdictional questions at the earliest opportunity. However, since the question concerned the court's own competence and evidence had been adduced with the suit pending determination, the court was duty-bound to hear and dispose of it without further ado.
Whether parties are bound by their pleadings on the question of jurisdiction
Yes - the defendants had admitted the court's jurisdiction in their statement of defence
At paragraph 9 of their joint statement of defence, the defendants admitted the court's jurisdiction, only to challenge it in submissions years later. The court invoked the principle that parties are bound by their pleadings, citing IEBC v Stephen Mutinda Mule, which weighed against the defendants' late objection, although the jurisdictional defect on the subject matter ultimately prevailed.
Legal principles established
#- A grant of letters of administration is what clothes a person with locus standi to sue on behalf of a deceased's estate
- A court lacking jurisdiction must stop at that point and cannot take any further step
Court orders
#- 1.Suit mounted by way of plaint dated 21st March 2013 struck out
- 2.Each party to bear his or her own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Benard Otieno Okore v Rusanel Akeyo Oinga & 2 others [2019] KEELC 851 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in judgment (transferred from Kisii Environment and Land Court, order of 24th May 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/851/eng@2019-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.