Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedChamber Summons dated 19th December 2017 (Judicial Review Proceedings)· [2019] KEELC 4629 (KLR)

Republic v Registrar of Titles & 2 others Exparte Mohamed Hassan Mwarumba Interested Party Abubakar Kaim Abdalla & 2 others [2019] KEELC 4629 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
11 February 2019
1,301 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed it can hear judicial review cases about land, and rejected an attempt to dismiss a suit without proper evidence.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa (C.K. Yano, J) determines a preliminary objection dated 10th May 2018 raised by the Interested Parties in judicial review proceedings. The ex-parte applicant, Mohamed Hassan Mwarumba, had applied by Chamber Summons dated 19th December 2017 for leave to institute judicial review proceedings to quash proceedings of the National Land Commission conducted on 26th October 2016 and October 2017, and the report arising therefrom dated 3rd April 2017, concerning land parcel MN/II/313, Utange. The Interested Parties objected that the applicant lacked locus standi because his grant of letters of administration had allegedly been revoked and his deceased father was not a registered owner of the suit plot, and that the court lacked jurisdiction. Counsel relied on Section 45 of the Law of Succession Act and the case of Peter Kiruri Mumbwa. The applicant's counsel maintained he sued as administrator under a grant obtained in Mombasa Succession Cause No. 343 of 2011. The court applied Owners of Motor Vessel 'Lillian S' v Caltex Kenya on jurisdiction, holding that under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Sections 13(1) and 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act, the ELC has jurisdiction to grant prerogative orders in land disputes. On locus standi, applying Mukisa Biscuits, the court held the revocation allegation raised issues of fact requiring ascertainment, unsupported by affidavit evidence. The preliminary objection was dismissed with each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the ELC to entertain judicial review (prerogative) orders in land disputes

Holding

The ELC has jurisdiction to hear the dispute and grant judicial review orders relating to land

Reasoning

Article 162(2)(b) mandates a court with High Court status for disputes on environment and land. Parliament created the ELC under the Environment and Land Court Act. Section 13(1) confers original and appellate jurisdiction, and Section 13(7)(b) expressly empowers the court to grant prerogative orders. The dispute concerns land parcel MN/II/313, Utange, and the applicant seeks judicial review of NLC proceedings over that land, so jurisdiction is established.

p. 3
02

Whether the applicant's locus standi could be challenged by preliminary objection on the ground that his grant of letters of administration was revoked

Holding

The objection failed because revocation of the grant was a factual issue not proved by affidavit and not admitted

Reasoning

Applying Mukisa Biscuits, a preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law on assumed facts. The Interested Parties alleged the grant had been revoked but filed no affidavit evidencing the revocation, raising it only in submissions, while the applicant did not admit it. Since facts had to be ascertained, the point could not properly be determined as a preliminary objection and it failed.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Jurisdiction must be raised and decided at the earliest opportunity; a court without jurisdiction cannot take any further step in the matter
  • The ELC has jurisdiction to grant prerogative orders in disputes relating to the use and occupation of, and title to, land
  • A preliminary objection cannot be sustained where it raises issues of fact that must be ascertained

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection dated 10th May 2018 is dismissed
  2. 2.Each party to bear their own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 162(2)(b)
  • Environment and Land Court ActSections 13(1) and 13(7)
  • Law of Succession ActSection 45

Cases cited (3)

  • Owners of Motor Vessel "Lillian S" – v- Caltex Kenya Ltd
    (1989) KLR 1
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacting CO. Ltd –v- West End Distributors Ltd
    (1969) EA
  • Peter Kiruri Mumbwa – v- Pauline Muthoni Kinyanjui & 2 Others
    (2018) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Sections 13(1) and 13(7) of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Republic v Registrar of Titles & 2 others Exparte Mohamed Hassan Mwarumba Interested Party Abubakar Kaim Abdalla & 2 others [2019] KEELC 4629 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Chamber Summons dated 19th December 2017 (Judicial Review Proceedings). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4629/eng@2019-02-11

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