Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNot stated in the judgment· [2019] KEELC 1051 (KLR)

Hussein Juma Ali v Juma Ali Omar & another [2019] KEELC 1051 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
31 October 2019
MSMunyao Sila
1,090 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land claim was struck out because the self-represented plaintiff's confusing filings never identified the land or the parties involved.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, acting in person, filed a series of documents that the court found unintelligible. On 25 January 2018 he filed a Notice of Motion seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from selling, constructing on or alienating land at Bububu area in Mombasa County, without identifying any specific parcel. On 4 September 2018 he filed a second, similarly worded Motion, and on the same day an Originating Summons under Order 37 Rules 7 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act claiming Plot No. 19 Bububu by adverse possession, supported by an affidavit merely asking for an injunction. A 'Letter of Consent dated 16th December 2017' listed in his documents was not in fact annexed; the annexure was a 1961 colonial licence over Plot No. 19 Section III Mainland South. A further bare Certificate of Urgency followed in November 2018. On 9 April 2019 A. Omolo J granted interim injunction orders; the matter came before Munyao Sila J for inter partes hearing on 14 October 2019. The 2nd respondent's counsel observed it was unclear what was before the court, noting the 1st respondent was the applicant's father and proprietor of Plot No. 19, while his client owned Plots 103 and 537. The court held that no suit capable of trial existed: the pleadings satisfied all four grounds of Order 2 Rule 15. It struck out all documents and any purported suit, vacated the interim orders, and awarded costs to the 2nd respondent, advising the applicant to file an intelligible suit and to instruct counsel.

Key legal issues

#
01

Striking out unintelligible pleadings under Order 2 Rule 15

Holding

All documents filed and any purported suit were struck out as disclosing nothing capable of trial

Reasoning

The applicant's successive filings - two Notices of Motion seeking injunctions over unidentified land and an Originating Summons for adverse possession - were incoherent. The injunctions named no parcel; the adverse possession claim targeted Plot No. 19, which the 2nd respondent did not own; no title deed or register extract was annexed as Order 37 Rule 7 requires. The respondents could not know what they were to answer, and the pleadings satisfied all four grounds of Order 2 Rule 15.

p. 1
02

Vacation of interim injunction orders

Holding

The interim orders granted on 9 April 2019 were vacated

Reasoning

Since no suit capable of going to trial existed, the court held there was nothing before it to sustain the injunction, and accordingly vacated the interim orders while awarding costs to the 2nd respondent.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A court may strike out pleadings and documents under Order 2 Rule 15 where they disclose no reasonable cause of action, are scandalous, frivolous or vexatious, may prejudice, embarrass or delay fair trial, or are an abuse of process
  • There can be no trial where the documents filed are unintelligible and the persons sued cannot tell what is facing them

Court orders

#
  1. 1.All documents filed in the matter are struck out
  2. 2.Any suit, if ever it can be considered that there was one filed, is struck out
  3. 3.The interim orders of injunction are vacated
  4. 4.Costs awarded to the 2nd respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 2 Rule 15
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 37 Rules 7 and 8
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Hussein Juma Ali v Juma Ali Omar & another [2019] KEELC 1051 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1051/eng@2019-10-31

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