Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck Out(ELC suit; Notice of Motion dated 28 August 2020)· [2022] KEELC 590 (KLR)

Teresia Nyambura & 3 others v Virginia Waithera Gathuku & 5 others [2022] KEELC 590 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
17 March 2022
1,272 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

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiffs, styling themselves as representatives of a deceased's estate, moved the court by Notice of Motion dated 28 August 2020 seeking a temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from charging, leasing, transferring or interfering with suit property pending hearing of the suit. The Defendants filed a preliminary objection contending the suit was fatally defective for failure to file and serve summons with the plaint, that the relief sought was not anchored in the pleadings, that the claim was time barred under Sections 7 and 8 of the Limitation of Actions Act, and that the suit belonged in the High Court Family Division as it was riddled with succession claims. The court, on written submissions, upheld the objection. First, it found the Plaintiffs lacked capacity to sue, having admitted they had not obtained Letters of Administration, as required by Section 82(a) of the Law of Succession Act per Muchelule J's ruling in High Court Succession Cause No 30 of 1979. Second, the suit was time barred, the Plaintiffs having become aware of the alleged fraud in 1980. Third, Order 5 rules 1(3) and (5) of the Civil Procedure Rules mandatorily require summons to be filed with the plaint; none had been extracted or served eleven months after filing. Fourth, the injunctive relief sought was not anchored in any pleadings, parties being bound by their pleadings per IEBC v Stephen Mule. However, the court rejected the objection on venue, holding the ELC had jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act. The notice of motion and the entire suit were struck out with costs to the Defendants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Plaintiffs had capacity to institute the suit

Holding

Plaintiffs lacked capacity as they had not obtained Letters of Administration over the deceased's estate

Reasoning

The court relied on Muchelule J's ruling in High Court Succession Cause No 30 of 1979 that a suit to recover land from those who acquired the estate without due process requires capacity to sue under Section 82(a) of the Law of Succession Act. The Plaintiffs admitted in their supporting affidavit that they had not been granted Letters of Administration, and therefore lacked capacity to institute the suit.

p. 2
02

Whether the suit was time barred under the Limitation of Actions Act

Holding

Suit was time barred; Plaintiffs became aware of the alleged fraud in 1980

Reasoning

The Defendants argued under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act that the cause of action arose in 1980. The Plaintiffs relied on Section 26 (fraud discovery). The court found from the Amended plaint that the Plaintiffs became aware of the alleged fraud in 1980, making the suit time barred.

p. 2
03

Whether failure to file and serve summons rendered the suit fatally defective

Holding

Yes; summons were neither filed with the plaint nor served eleven months later

Reasoning

Order 5 rules 1(3) and (5) of the Civil Procedure Rules require every summons to be accompanied by a copy of the plaint and filed with the plaint in mandatory terms. The Plaintiffs admitted non-compliance and had neither extracted nor served summons eleven months after filing. Following Nzamba Kavili, the suit was struck out.

p. 3
04

Whether the injunction sought was anchored in the pleadings

Holding

No; neither the plaint nor Amended plaint contained a prayer for injunctive or preservatory orders

Reasoning

Relying on IEBC v Stephen Mule, the court held parties are bound by their pleadings. The notice of motion sought a temporary injunction, but the plaint and Amended plaint contained no injunctive or preservatory prayer, so the application was unsupported by the pleadings.

p. 3
05

Whether the suit was filed before the wrong court

Holding

No; the Environment and Land Court had jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) and the ELC Act

Reasoning

The Defendants argued the plaint was riddled with succession and probate claims and should have been filed in the High Court Family Division. The court rejected this ground, holding that the Environment and Land Court Act and Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution confer jurisdiction on the ELC over the land claim.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Parties are bound by their pleadings, which limit the issues upon which a trial court may pronounce
  • A plaint shall be filed together with summons, and failure to serve summons is fatal to the suit

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Preliminary objection upheld
  2. 2.Notice of motion dated 28th August 2020 struck out
  3. 3.Entire suit struck out with costs to the Defendants/Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21Sections 3, 3A and 63(c)
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 45 rules 2(1) and (2); Order 40 rule 1 and 4; Order 5 rules 1(3) and (5)
  • Limitation of Actions ActSections 7, 8 and 26
  • Law of Succession ActSection 82(a)
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 13
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 162(2)(b)

Cases cited (6)

  • Sealink Holidings Ltd vs Barclays Bank of Kenya Ltd
    [2021] eKLR
  • Mohammed Ali Abdalla vs Morris Guchura Njagi
    [2016] eKLR
  • Nzamba Kavili vs Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
    [2021] eKLR
  • Sunrise Properties Limited vs Fifty Investments Limited
    [2007] eKLR
  • IEBC & Another vs Stephen Mule & 3 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Raila Odinga & Another vs IEBC & 20 Others
    [2017] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Teresia Nyambura & 3 others v Virginia Waithera Gathuku & 5 others [2022] KEELC 590 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). (ELC suit; Notice of Motion dated 28 August 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/590/eng@2022-03-17

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