Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNot stated in the judgment· [2021] KEELC 1511 (KLR)

Victor Giri Kogo (Suing as an agent of Geoffrey Michael Trimby and Margaret Lesley Trimby being the registered Trustees of Neema School (Kenya)Trust v Walter Chipa Mkindo [2021] KEELC 1511 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
14 October 2021
2,017 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court struck out a land suit because the person filing it never got the court's approval to act as an agent for the real owners.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Malindi (M.A. Odeny, J) determines a preliminary objection dated 4th November 2020 raised by the defendant, contending that the suit was a non-starter and fatally defective for contravention of Order 9 Rules 1(a) and 2(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules, that the plaintiff lacked locus standi, and that the suit was an abuse of court process. The suit was purportedly commenced by Victor Kogo as recognized agent for Geoffrey Michael Trimby and Margaret Lesley Trimby, registered trustees of the Neema School (Kenya) Trust, under a power of attorney said to have been executed outside the court's jurisdiction. The defendant argued that no leave or approval of the court was sought for the agent's appearance, that no trust deed or resolution conferring authority to appoint the agent was exhibited, and that a board member was kept in the dark. The plaintiff conceded that no court approval had been obtained and that a drafting error occurred, seeking to cure the defect by amendment and invoking Article 159(2) of the Constitution. Citing Geoffrey Ndungu Theuri v Republic and Guyo Bashora Dala v Riverside Farm Malindi Limited, the court held that a recognized agent may act only subject to the court's approval, and that locus standi goes to the core of the suit and cannot be cured by Article 159(2). The preliminary objection was upheld and the plaintiff's suit struck out with costs to the defendant.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a recognized agent under Order 9 Rule 1(a) and 2(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules may commence a suit without prior court approval

Holding

No. A recognized agent holding a power of attorney must obtain the court's approval before acting or commencing proceedings; failure to do so is fatal and not a mere technicality curable under Article 159(2).

Reasoning

The court adopted the reasoning of prior decisions holding that the power of attorney of a recognized agent is subject to the court's approval in each particular suit. Counsel for the plaintiff admitted no such approval was obtained and sought to cure the defect by amendment. The court held that locus standi goes to the substance of the suit, not mere form, and that allowing the suit to proceed would risk aiding an illegality in the transfer of a person's land.

p. 3
02

Whether Article 159(2) of the Constitution (procedural technicalities) cures the absence of court approval for a recognized agent

Holding

No. The defect touches the core of the suit - the right plaintiff before the court - and cannot be wished away under Article 159(2).

Reasoning

While counsel for the plaintiff invoked Article 159(2) and submitted the defect was formal and curable by amendment, the court distinguished between procedural formality and substantive locus standi. The court must have the right plaintiff and defendant before it, and would not turn a blind eye to serious errors and anomalies in a matter concerning land transfer.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A person appearing as a recognized agent under Order 9 Rules 1(a) and 2(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules must first obtain the approval of the court before commencing or acting in proceedings
  • Locus standi and the power to act on another's behalf go to the core of a suit and cannot be overlooked under Article 159(2) of the Constitution

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection is upheld
  2. 2.The plaintiff's suit is struck out
  3. 3.Costs of the suit awarded to the defendant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 9 Rule 1(a)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 9 Rule 2(a)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 21 [1]
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)

Cases cited (7)

  • Tsuma Kenga Mwadzembe vs Karembo Anthony Masha
    [2016] eKLR
  • Jack J. K Nangira and another Vs Safaricom Limited
    [2012] eKLR
  • Carolyne Mpenzwe Chipande Vs Wanja Kazungu Baya
    [2014] eKLR
  • Margaret Wamboi Kinuthia v Patrick Nd’ung’u & Another
    (2015) eKLR
  • D.T Dobie & Company (Kenya) Ltd v Muchina
    (1982) KLR 1
  • Geoffrey Ndungu Theuri v Republic
    [1990] eKLR
  • Guyo Bashora Dala & 75 others v Riverside Farm Malindi Limited
    [2020] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (as inferred; not expressly quoted in the ruling)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Victor Giri Kogo (Suing as an agent of Geoffrey Michael Trimby and Margaret Lesley Trimby being the registered Trustees of Neema School (Kenya)Trust v Walter Chipa Mkindo [2021] KEELC 1511 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1511/eng@2021-10-14

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