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 (Chuka) – suit filed 27th February 2019· [2019] KEELC 919 (KLR)

Njiru Micheni Nthiga (Suing as a legal representative and Administrator of the Estate of the Deceased Leonard R.I. Nthiga) v Governor, Tharaka Nithi County Government & 5 others [2019] KEELC 919 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
13 November 2019
8,899 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~36 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed it can hear land disputes of any value, and struck down an attempt to move a Kshs. 15 million case to a lower court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Chuka (P. M. Njoroge J) disposed of a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 25th March 2019 filed by the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th defendants against the plaintiff's suit and a pending Notice of Motion dated 27th February 2019. The plaintiff, legal representative of the late registered proprietor of LR Magumoni/Thuita/779, valued at Kshs. 15,437,000, sued over demolition of buildings allegedly effected for road expansion without compensation. The defendants contended that the suit should have been filed in the Chief Magistrate's Court, which under section 7 of the Magistrates' Courts Act can hear civil suits up to Kshs. 20 million, and invoked the rule that a court without jurisdiction must down its tools. The plaintiff maintained the ELC's jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) and section 13 of the ELC Act, arguing it has unlimited original jurisdiction and could transfer rather than strike out the suit. The court agreed with the defendants on the principle that jurisdiction is everything, but held that section 7 nowhere ousts the ELC's jurisdiction; Article 162 grants the ELC equality of status with the High Court, which has unlimited original civil jurisdiction. Grounds 1 and 2 of the objection were dismissed; grounds 3, 4 and 5 were dismissed as argumentative and not pure points of law, and ground 6 as nebulous. The entire preliminary objection was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff. The court also canvassed, without issuing a distinct final order in the disposition, whether the 3rd defendant, the MCA for Magumoni Ward, was properly sued.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ELC lacks pecuniary jurisdiction because the suit property is valued at Kshs. 15,437,000, within the jurisdiction of the Chief Magistrate's Court under section 7 of the Magistrates' Courts Act

Holding

The preliminary objection on jurisdiction failed; the ELC has unlimited original jurisdiction in land disputes and section 7 does not oust it

Reasoning

Section 7 of the Magistrates' Courts Act merely confers pecuniary limits on the various cadres of magistracy; it nowhere ousts the jurisdiction of the ELC. Article 162 grants the ELC equality of status with the High Court, which enjoys unlimited original jurisdiction in civil matters. Section 13(1) of the ELC Act gives the court original and appellate jurisdiction over all land and environment disputes under Article 162(2)(b). The court also noted it may transfer a suit to a subordinate court under section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act where necessary.

p. 13
02

Whether the defendants' preliminary objection grounds 3, 4 and 5 raised pure points of law

Holding

They did not; they were argumentative and dismissed

Reasoning

Applying the classic definition in Mukisa Biscuits, a preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct. Grounds 3, 4 and 5, which alleged the plaintiff built on a road reserve without approvals and could not establish a prima facie case, required ascertainment of facts and merits. Ground 6 was nebulous and raised issues needing canvassing in the main suit.

p. 14
03

Whether the 3rd defendant (MCA Magumoni Ward) is properly sued

Holding

Not definitively determined; the plaintiff's oral application to exclude the 3rd defendant's name was allowed by the court's directions of 25th March 2019, but the substantive suit continued with the issue canvassed in submissions

Reasoning

The court directed parties to address whether the 3rd defendant was properly sued. The 3rd defendant argued no specific allegations were levelled against him, the constitutional duty lies with the state, and orders could not vest against him. The plaintiff opposed, citing particulars of his conduct including holding a baraza and directing marking of the suit property for demolition. The ruling's final orders, however, dealt only with the preliminary objection on jurisdiction, and no express order on the 3rd defendant's removal appears in the disposition.

p. 14

Legal principles established

#
  • The ELC, having the same status as the High Court under Article 162, has unlimited original jurisdiction in civil land and environment disputes, and section 7 of the Magistrates' Courts Act does not oust that jurisdiction
  • Where a court lacks jurisdiction it must down its tools immediately
  • Grounds that require facts to be ascertained or that are argumentative cannot sustain a preliminary objection

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Grounds 1 and 2 of the Notice of Preliminary Objection dismissed
  2. 2.Grounds 3, 4 and 5 dismissed as argumentative and not pure points of law
  3. 3.Ground 6 dismissed as nebulous
  4. 4.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dismissed in its entirety
  5. 5.Costs of the Preliminary Objection awarded to the plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Magistrates' Courts Actsections 7, 8(1), 9
  • Environment and Land Court Actsections 4, 13(1), 13(7), 26
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 159(2)(a),(b),(d),(e), 162(2)(b), 165(3), 165(5), 23, 25(a),(b), 40, 64, 199
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 18(1)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 Rules 3, 4(b) and 5
  • Land Registration Actsections 2, 80
  • Physical Planning Actnot specified
  • Local Government Act (repealed)not specified

Cases cited (11)

  • Law Society of Kenya Nairobi Branch v Malindi Law Society & 6 Others
    [2017] eKLR
  • Owners of the Motor Vessel Lillian S v Caltex Oil Kenya Ltd
    [1989] KLR 1
  • Kamau Mucuha v Ripples Ltd
    [1993] eKLR
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd
    (1969) EA 696
  • John Mundia Njoroge and 9 Others v Cecilia Muthoni Njoroge and Another
    [2016] eKLR
  • Omondi v National Bank of Kenya Ltd and Others
    [2001] 1 EA 177
  • Amos Tirop Matui & another v Festus K. Kiprono & 2 others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Oraro v Mbaja
    (2005) eKLR
  • E.L.C Case No. 868 of 2012, Ruling by Justice A. Ombwayo
    delivered 25th April 2018
  • Eldoret Misc. Civil Application No. 97 of 2003 revisited by Justice M. K. Ibrahim
    Judgment delivered 13th June 2007
  • Samuel Waweru v Geoffrey Muhoro Mwangi, Nakuru Civil Case No. 489 of 2013
    Judgment delivered 21st February 2014 by Justice L. N. Waithaka
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution as read with section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Njiru Micheni Nthiga (Suing as a legal representative and Administrator of the Estate of the Deceased Leonard R.I. Nthiga) v Governor, Tharaka Nithi County Government & 5 others [2019] KEELC 919 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELC Case (Chuka) – suit filed 27th February 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/919/eng@2019-11-13

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