Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedEmbu Appeal No. 18 of 2014· [2022] KEELC 1629 (KLR)

John Kinyua Kivuti v Kanyi Njiru & 4 others [2022] KEELC 1629 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 January 2022
2,812 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~11 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court confirmed it can cancel wrongful land register entries, but only the High Court can handle succession matters.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Embu (A.K. Kaniaru J) determines a preliminary objection dated 14.8.2021 raised by the appellant/respondent, John Kinyua Kivuti, against a Notice of Motion dated 23rd June 2020 filed by the respondents/applicants in an appeal arising from Embu Civil Suit No. 18 of 2002. The application sought cancellation of entries Nos. 2, 3 and 4 on the register of land parcel Kagaari/Kanja/226 and an order that a proper succession cause be filed for the estate of Njiru Gacima. The objection raised three grounds: want of jurisdiction, that the application was vexatious and an abuse of process, and that it was statute barred under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act. Applying the Mukisa Biscuit test, the court held that ground 2 was not a pure point of law. On jurisdiction, the court found that prayer 1 (cancellation of register entries) fell squarely within Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act read with Section 80 of the Land Registration Act, though prayer 2 (succession) fell outside its jurisdiction and belongs to the High Court. On limitation, the court held that time stops running during the pendency of suits, the land was in continuous litigation until a judgment of 2015, and the application was governed by Section 4(4) (twelve years from judgment), only five years having lapsed. The preliminary objection was dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the objection on jurisdiction (ground 1) is sustainable

Holding

The court has jurisdiction to determine the application in respect of prayer 1 (cancellation of register entries) under Article 162(2)(b), Section 13 ELC Act and Section 80 Land Registration Act; it lacks jurisdiction over prayer 2 (succession).

Reasoning

The court examined Section 13(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act, which empowers it to determine disputes relating to title, land administration and instruments granting enforceable interests in land. Section 80 of the Land Registration Act confers power to order rectification of the register where a registration was obtained by fraud or mistake. Since prayer 1 sought cancellation of register entries on land parcel Kagaari/Kanja/226, the subject matter is a land dispute vesting jurisdiction in the ELC. However, the order directing filing of a proper succession cause belongs to the High Court's succession jurisdiction.

p. 3
02

Whether the application is statute barred under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act

Holding

No. The application seeks to enforce a judgment delivered in 2015 and is governed by Section 4(4) (twelve years from judgment), not Section 7; only five years had lapsed.

Reasoning

The respondent traced the cause of action to 1979 when the transfer was registered, invoking Section 7's twelve-year rule for recovery of land. The court held that limitation time stops running during the pendency of a suit, and the parcel was subject to continuous litigation (Embu Civil Suit No. 18 of 2002 and the appeal dismissed in 2015). The application, filed in 2020, essentially seeks to give life to the 2015 judgment, so Section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act governs and the application is not time barred.

p. 4
03

Whether ground 2 (vexatious, scandalous, abuse of process) is a proper ground of preliminary objection

Holding

Ground 2 is not a pure point of law and thus not properly raised as a preliminary objection.

Reasoning

Guided by Mukisa Biscuit and JSK v WKW, the court restated that a preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law on assumed pleaded facts. An assertion that an application is vexatious, scandalous, frivolous and an abuse of court process does not meet that test, as it requires consideration of facts and matters outside the pleadings. Accordingly, that ground could not sustain the objection.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law, argued on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct, and cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or judicial discretion exercised
  • The Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the ELC Act over land disputes, including applications for rectification of the register
  • Time for limitation stops running during the pendency of a suit, and an action upon a judgment is governed by the twelve-year period under Section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act, not Section 7

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection dated 14.8.2021 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the preliminary objection to the respondent

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 162(2)(b)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticles 42, 69 and 70
  • Environment and Land Court ActSection 13 (including 13(2))
  • Land Registration ActSection 80
  • Land Act 2012Sections 128 and 150
  • Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 Laws of KenyaSection 7
  • Limitation of Actions Act, Cap 22 Laws of KenyaSection 4(4)

Cases cited (2)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. West End Distributors Ltd.
    (1969) EA 696
  • JSK v WKW
    [2019] eKLR
On appeal from
Senior Resident Magistrate's Court (Embu Civil Suit No. 18 of 2002, appeal earlier filed as Kerugoya Appeal No. 308 of 2013)
Embu Civil Suit No. 18 of 2002
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution; Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "John Kinyua Kivuti v Kanyi Njiru & 4 others [2022] KEELC 1629 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Embu Appeal No. 18 of 2014. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/1629/eng@2022-01-26

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