Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutELC Suit (Mombasa), plaint dated 25th March 2019· [2021] KEELC 1771 (KLR)

Tabu Lazaro Nzuya & another v David Kinisu Sifuna & 9 others [2021] KEELC 1771 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
21 July 2021
3,022 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a land suit because it cannot overturn the High Court's orders, and the two courts have equal status.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The court (C.K. Yano, J) determined two preliminary objections: one by the 9th defendant arguing the suit was a nullity having been filed nearly eight years after his death, and one by the 1st defendant raising lack of jurisdiction, lack of locus standi, and contravention of the Civil Procedure Rules. The plaintiffs, as administrators of the estate of John Alpha Batazal, sought declarations setting aside consent orders and certificates relating to Plots 411, 413 and 414, and a permanent injunction. The court framed three issues: jurisdiction, locus standi, and whether the suit against the deceased 9th defendant was a nullity. Relying on Republic v Karisa Chengo (Supreme Court) and Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lilian S', the court held that as a court of equal status with the High Court under Article 162(2), it has no jurisdiction to set aside, review or re-open consent orders of the High Court in HCCC 297 of 2010. Having no jurisdiction over prayers (a) and (c), the taint affected the entire suit, so the court downed its tools and struck out the plaint dated 25th March 2019, dismissing the suit with costs to the defendants. The remaining issues of locus standi and the nullity of the suit against the deceased 9th defendant were not separately determined. Counsel for the 1st and 9th defendants supported the objections; the plaintiff did not appear at delivery.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the ELC has jurisdiction to set aside consent orders of the High Court

Holding

It does not; the ELC is a court of equal, autonomous jurisdiction and cannot review, supervise or sit on appeal over High Court decisions.

Reasoning

Article 162(2)(b) created the ELC with jurisdiction over environment and land disputes. The Supreme Court in Republic v Karisa Chengo established that the ELC, ELRC and High Court are different, autonomous courts of equal hierarchical stature; none can superintend or review the decisions of another. Because prayers (a) and (c) sought to set aside consent orders of the High Court, and that jurisdiction taint persisted across the plaint, the court lacked jurisdiction over the whole suit and struck it out.

p. 4
02

Whether the suit against the deceased 9th defendant was a nullity

Holding

The objection raised that a suit filed nearly eight years after the 9th defendant's death was a nullity, but the court's jurisdictional finding disposed of the entire suit before this ground fell for decision.

Reasoning

The 9th defendant died on 3rd June 2012 and the plaint was filed on 25th March 2019, with a death certificate, grant and confirmed grant exhibited. Counsel for the plaintiffs argued the defect was curable by substitution. However, having found it lacked jurisdiction, the court could not proceed to determine the remaining issues, as any decision made would amount to nothing.

p. 4
03

Whether the plaintiffs had locus standi

Holding

Not determined on the merits; the objection was overtaken by the jurisdictional finding disposing of the whole suit.

Reasoning

The 1st defendant argued the plaintiffs lacked locus because the deceased neither owned the suit property nor was the agency created by power of attorney transmissible by death. The plaintiffs asserted capacity as legal representatives holding letters of administration. The court did not pronounce on locus standi, as jurisdiction was decisive and the suit was struck out in its entirety.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Jurisdiction must be determined as soon as it is raised and a court without jurisdiction must down tools immediately.
  • The ELC and ELRC are autonomous courts of equal status with the High Court and cannot hear matters reserved to the High Court's jurisdiction, including review of High Court decisions.
  • A suit filed against a deceased person is a nullity from inception (as submitted and relied on by the 9th defendant).

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 1st defendant's Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 25th November 2019 is allowed.
  2. 2.The plaint dated 25th March 2019 is struck out.
  3. 3.The suit is dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 162(2)(b)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 165 and 165(5)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 4 Rule 4; Order 9 Rule 1 and 2(a)

Cases cited (5)

  • Viktar Maina Ngunjiri & 4 others v Attorney General & 6 others
    (2018) eKLR
  • Republic v Karisa Chengo & 2 others
    (2017) eKLR
  • Witt & Busch Ltd v Dale Power Systems, PLC
    (2007) 17 NWLR (pt 1062)
  • Charles K. Kandie v Mary Kimoi
    (2017) eKLR
  • Owners of the Motor Vessel 'Lilian S' v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd
    (1989) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Tabu Lazaro Nzuya & another v David Kinisu Sifuna & 9 others [2021] KEELC 1771 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). ELC Suit (Mombasa), plaint dated 25th March 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/1771/eng@2021-07-21

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