Alex Muriithi Kangangi v Eunice Wanjira Ngatu (sued in her capacity as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Late Geoffrey Ngatu Githethuki) [2019] KEELC 1136 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court refused to throw out a landowner's suit, ruling that genuine disputes over conflicting tribunal orders must be fully heard, not decided on paper.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit should be struck out under Order 2 Rule 15 CPR
The application to strike out was dismissed because a triable issue exists as to whether the Tribunal award was overturned on appeal
The court applied the D.T. Dobie & Company (Kenya) Ltd v Muchina test that no suit should be summarily dismissed unless it is plainly and obviously hopeless and incurable by amendment. The plaintiff denied the defendant's orders and produced an order of the Provincial Land Disputes Appeals Committee of 3rd December 2008 upsetting the Tribunal award. Since that conflict over the existence and validity of court orders is a matter of fact requiring authentication and evidence, it is a triable issue fit for determination at the main hearing.
The appropriate standard for striking out pleadings
Striking out is draconian and must be used sparingly in only the most plainly hopeless cases
The court adopted the Court of Appeal's guidance in D.T. Dobie & Company (Kenya) Ltd v Muchina (1982) KLR 1 as binding, holding that even a suit showing a mere semblance of a cause of action, capable of being cured by amendment, should be allowed to proceed so that a court does not act in darkness without the full facts.
Legal principles established
#- A suit ought not be summarily dismissed unless it is plainly and obviously hopeless and discloses no reasonable cause of action; a mere semblance of a cause of action which can be cured by amendment should proceed to trial
- Striking out pleadings is a draconian measure that must be employed sparingly and only in the most deserving cases
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 28th March 2019 is dismissed
- 2.The defendant to pay the costs of the application (dismissed with costs)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; application under Order 51 Rule 1, Order 2 Rule 15(1)(a), (b) & (d) CPR and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A CPA
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Alex Muriithi Kangangi v Eunice Wanjira Ngatu (sued in her capacity as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Late Geoffrey Ngatu Githethuki) [2019] KEELC 1136 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the judgment (Arbitration Cause No. 8 of 2007, Wang'uru, transferred to ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1136/eng@2019-10-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.