Peter Njuguna Gitau v Daniel Kiprono Kiptum & 3 others [2022] KEELC 1071 (KLR)

The EACC suits seek declaratory and cancellation orders against various defendants over alienation of public land, while the Plaintiff here, though not a party to those suits, seeks specific performance of sale agreements or a refund. The court however found a real risk of conflicting decisions over ownership of the same parcels and therefore stayed the suit under the court's inherent powers rather than striking it out.

Relying on Pratap Chand Mehta v Chrisna Devi Mehta as cited in Viktar Maina Ngunjiri, a suit against a dead person is a nullity only where that person is the sole defendant. Where one of several defendants is dead, the correct course is to strike out that name; here the claim against the 3rd Defendant was withdrawn on 2nd June 2021, so the ground failed.

The sub judice rule prevents multiplicity of suits and conflicting decisions. The Plaintiff claims beneficial interest in the same four parcels that the EACC suits seek to have cancelled as public land. Given the likelihood of conflicting decisions over ownership, the court invoked Section 3A inherent powers and stayed the suit pending determination of the four EACC suits.

Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act confers original jurisdiction over all land disputes per Article 162(2)(b). Magistrates' courts may hear land disputes within pecuniary limits of Kshs. 5-20 million, but Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Act (lowest grade court) is administrative, not a bar. Adding interest, general damages and costs would exceed Kshs. 20 million in any event.