Laban Kamau Kinuthia & 2 others v Margaret Wangari Ngugi & 5 others [2022] KEELC 1500 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed church leaders' bid to block land transfers because they lacked proper authority to sue, though it kept jurisdiction over multi-county property disputes.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the court has jurisdiction over a dispute where one of eight suit properties (Ngong/Ngong/18649) lies in Kajiado County while the rest lie in Kiambu County
The court's jurisdiction was not ousted; seven of the eight parcels are within Kiambu, the cause of action arises from the same series of transactions involving the same parties, and Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Act permits filing where any portion of the property is situated
Article 162(2)(b) establishes the ELC's broad jurisdiction and Section 26 of the ELC Act allows sittings at any place. The court held its jurisdiction is not limited by geographical or devolved units. Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Act permits a suit over immovable property in different jurisdictions to be filed where any portion lies, provided the claim's value is cognizable by that court. Judicial economy favours one court hearing the entire dispute.
Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to institute the suit and the application on behalf of the 3rd plaintiff
The plaintiffs failed to demonstrate capacity: the 3rd plaintiff, a society under the Societies Act, cannot sue in its own name; the exhibited annual returns did not show the 2nd plaintiff as an official; and no authority was exhibited from the national church council or board of trustees authorizing the suit
Once the defendants challenged their capacity, the plaintiffs bore the burden of demonstrating locus standi. The only exhibit was Form 1 annual returns with no confirmation from the Registrar of Societies, and the 2nd plaintiff did not appear as an official. The church constitution vests property decisions in the national church council and property-holding in the board of trustees, neither of which authorized the plaintiffs to sue. Consequently no right requiring injunctive protection was demonstrated.
Whether the plaintiffs satisfied the Giella v Cassman Brown criteria for an interlocutory injunction
They failed on all limbs: no prima facie case with a probability of success and no demonstration of irreparable damage not compensable by damages
Applying the Giella criteria, the court found the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success, principally because of their failure to establish capacity. They likewise failed to show irreparable harm not adequately indemnified by damages. The balance of convenience did not therefore arise, and the application was rejected.
Legal principles established
#- The jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court is not limited by geographical, administrative or devolved units; where immovable property in one suit lies within the jurisdiction of different courts, the suit may be instituted in any court within whose local limits any portion of the property is situated, per Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Act
- A society registered under the Societies Act lacks capacity to sue or be sued in its own name and cannot be made a substantive party to a suit
- A party whose locus standi is challenged must demonstrate authority from the organs mandated by the entity's constitution to institute the suit
- At the interlocutory stage the court does not make conclusive or definitive pronouncements on the key issues in the suit; those are reserved for final determination
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiffs' notice of motion dated 4/5/2021 seeking an interlocutory injunction is rejected for lack of merit
- 2.The plaintiffs shall bear the costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Laban Kamau Kinuthia & 2 others v Margaret Wangari Ngugi & 5 others [2022] KEELC 1500 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment (plaint dated 4/5/2021; notice of motion dated 4/5/2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/1500/eng@2022-02-07
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.