Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 2nd April 2019 in ELC suit (arising from Kajiado ELC proceedings concerning Kajiado/Kisaju/121, 1794, 1818, 4610, 4611-4615)· [2019] KEELC 1738 (KLR)

Susan Nyambura Njenga v Own A Plot Ltd & 2 others; Elias Ndwiga Njoka (Interested Party) [2019] KEELC 1738 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 September 2019
2,229 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court in Kajiado refused to dismiss this land dispute, ruling that real questions about ownership and fraud must be decided at a full trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on a Notice of Motion dated 2nd April 2019 by Elias Njoka Ndwiga, an intended Interested Party, seeking dismissal of the suit as frivolous and an abuse of court process, and setting aside of orders issued on 2nd December 2014. The application was brought under Order 2 Rule 15(2)(b)(c)(d) and Order 51(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 3, 3A, 63(e) and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. The Applicant claimed to have owned Kajiado/Kisaju/121 since 1998 and alleged that the subdivisions producing parcels including Kajiado/Kisaju/1794 and 4610 (later 4611-4615) were fraudulent, with repudiated mutations and parallel registry records. The 2nd Defendant opposed, asserting it purchased the land from the 1st Defendant after due diligence, tracing the root from Kajiado/Kisaju/19, through Kajiado/Kisaju/121 owned by Joseph Silipo Kepiro and sold to Ngara East Women Group, whose 135 members subdivided it. The court framed two issues: whether the 2nd December 2014 orders should be set aside, and whether the suit should be dismissed as frivolous and abusive. It declined to set aside the 2014 orders, finding they preserved the substratum of the suit with no demonstrated prejudice. Relying on Ramji Megji Gudka, DT Dobie and Patel, the court held striking-out powers must be exercised sparingly and that the pleadings raised triable issues on ownership and alleged fraud requiring a full trial. The application was disallowed, parties were directed to comply with Order 11 and set the suit down for hearing, with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether orders of injunction issued on 2nd December 2014 should be set aside

Holding

The court declined to set them aside as they preserved the substratum of the suit and no prejudice was shown

Reasoning

The Applicant sought setting aside of the 2nd December 2014 injunction orders. The court noted the orders were granted to preserve the substratum of the suit pending determination. It found no party would suffer prejudice if the orders remained in place, and therefore declined to disturb them, allowing them to subsist pending trial.

p. 2
02

Whether the suit should be dismissed under Order 2 Rule 15 as frivolous and an abuse of process

Holding

Dismissal refused; pleadings raise triable issues on ownership and alleged fraud that must go to full trial

Reasoning

Applying Order 2 Rule 15(1) and the Ramji Megji Gudka and DT Dobie authorities, the court held striking-out powers must be sparingly exercised in the clearest of cases. The 2nd Defendant's defence explained how it acquired the land after due diligence; the pleadings raise triable issues on how each party acquired the suit lands and on alleged fraudulent subdivisions, which should be determined at trial.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • The power to strike out pleadings must be sparingly exercised and only in the clearest of cases
  • A court should not determine merits at the striking-out stage; even one triable issue suffices to keep a suit alive

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The orders of injunction issued on 2nd December 2014 are not set aside and shall subsist
  2. 2.The Interested Party's application dated 2nd April 2019 seeking dismissal of the suit is disallowed
  3. 3.All parties to comply with Order 11 and set the suit down for hearing
  4. 4.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 2 Rule 15(1), 15(2)(b)(c)(d)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 11
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51(1)
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 3, 3A, 63(e), 80
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)

Cases cited (5)

  • Geoffrey Githinji Mwangi & 2 others V Jubilee Party & 11 other (2018) eKLR
    (2018) eKLR
  • Trust Bank Limited V Amin Company Ltd & Another (2000) KLR 164
    (2000) KLR 164
  • RAMJI MEGJI GUDKA LTD –Vs- ALFRED MORFAT OMUNDI MICHIRA & 2 OTHERS [2005] eKLR
    [2005] eKLR
  • DT DOBIE & COMPANY (KENYA) LTD. V. MUCHINA [1982] KLR 1
    [1982] KLR 1
  • Patel V EA Cargo Handling Services Ltd (1974) EA 75
    (1974) EA 75
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 2 Rule 15(2)(b)(c)(d) and Order 51(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 3, 3A, 63(e) and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Susan Nyambura Njenga v Own A Plot Ltd & 2 others; Elias Ndwiga Njoka (Interested Party) [2019] KEELC 1738 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Notice of Motion dated 2nd April 2019 in ELC suit (arising from Kajiado ELC proceedings concerning Kajiado/Kisaju/121, 1794, 1818, 4610, 4611-4615). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1738/eng@2019-09-16

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