Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in extract ( suit referenced as Meru High Court ELC No. 8 of 2020 in submissions)· [2020] KEELC 730 (KLR)

Majani Estates Limited v Muthoni Nkonge & 8 others [2020] KEELC 730 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court (delivered at Chuka)
11 November 2020
2,486 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled a land dispute cannot be paused over a succession case the plaintiff was never part of.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Chuka (P. M. Njoroge J, delivered 11 November 2020) determined a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 8 September 2020 filed by the defendants, urging that the plaintiff's suit be struck out or stayed because it offended section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, the subject matter being directly and substantially in issue in Meru High Court Succession Cause No. 246 of 1995 (Estate of Kangangi Kairaria, deceased), in which status quo orders over land parcels Mwimbi/Chogoria/5951-5953 had been issued on 30 July 2020. The objection was canvassed by written submissions. The defendants, relying on Mukhisa Biscuit, Republic v Registrar of Societies (Kirima), Nyanza Garage, Barclays Bank v Agidza and Thika Min Hydro, argued that the parties and subject matter overlapped and that conflicting orders had issued in the two matters, warranting dismissal or a stay pending determination of the succession cause. The plaintiff countered that the parties differed (save for the plaintiff), that the succession cause was concluded by a confirmed grant, and that the suit concerned use, not ownership, of land. The court held that a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law, but that section 6 was not satisfied because the plaintiff was not a party to the succession cause; the possibility of conflicting orders did not render the suit res sub judice. The preliminary objection was dismissed with costs in the cause. Interim orders on the plaintiff's application dated 5 August 2020 were extended under section 63 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the parties were directed to comply with Order 11 within 21 days and return for directions on 17 November 2020.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the preliminary objection qualifies as a pure point of law

Holding

The objection under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act is the type of point of law properly raisable by preliminary objection

Reasoning

Relying on Mukhisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd, a preliminary objection raises a pure point of law argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct, and cannot be raised if facts must be ascertained or discretion exercised. The section 6 objection was treated as such a legal issue going to the root of whether there is a competent suit.

p. 2
02

Whether the suit is res sub judice Succession Cause No. 246 of 1995

Holding

No — the plaintiff is not a party to the succession cause, so the requirements of section 6 are not met

Reasoning

Section 6 requires that the matter in issue be directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or parties litigating under the same title. Although conflicting status quo orders had issued in the two matters, the plaintiff was not a party to the succession cause, so section 6 was not satisfied; the undesirability of conflicting orders could not make the suit res sub judice.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A suit cannot be res sub judice a prior suit in which the plaintiff was not a party

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 8th September 2020 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs shall be in the cause
  3. 3.Interim orders issued concerning the plaintiff's application dated 5th August 2020 are extended in terms of section 63 of the Civil Procedure Act
  4. 4.Parties directed to fully comply with Order 11, CPR within 21 days and to come back to court for directions on 17th November 2020

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21)section 6
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21)sections 1A and 1B
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21)section 3A
  • Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21)section 63
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 2 Rule 9
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 11

Cases cited (5)

  • Mukhisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs West End Distributors Ltd
    1969 E.A. 696
  • Republic v Registrar of Societies - Kenya & 2 Others Ex-Parte Moses Kirima & 2 Others
    [2017] eKLR
  • Nyanza Garage vs. Attorney General
    Kampala High Court Civil Suit No. 450 of 1993
  • Barclays Bank Of Kenya Ltd vs. Elizabeth Agidza & 2 Others
    [2012] eKLR
  • Thika Min Hydro Co. Ltd vs. Josphat Karu Ndwiga
    (2013) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction; section 6, Civil Procedure Act (res sub judice) raised by preliminary objection

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Majani Estates Limited v Muthoni Nkonge & 8 others [2020] KEELC 730 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in extract ( suit referenced as Meru High Court ELC No. 8 of 2020 in submissions). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/730/eng@2020-11-11

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