Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedMombasa ELC suit (arising from Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 2nd February 2022)· [2022] KEELC 2841 (KLR)

Omar (Suing on his behalf and as legal representative of the Estate of Sakinabal Ali Mohamed (Deceased) v Intergra Auctioneers (K) Company & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 231 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 2841 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
18 July 2022
7,921 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~32 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a preliminary objection, ruling that disputes requiring factual investigation must proceed to full trial, not be struck out early.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa (Naikuni J) determined a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 2nd February 2022 raised by the 2nd Defendant, a bank under liquidation represented by the Kenya Deposit Insurance Corporation, in a suit in which the plaintiff, armed with a limited grant ad colligenda bona for the estate of Sakinabai Ali Mohamed, sought to restrain the statutory power of sale over Mombasa/block XLI/156. The 2nd Defendant advanced four grounds: want of prior leave under Section 56(2) of the Kenya Deposit Insurance Act, res judicata by reason of two prior suits over the same property, want of locus standi under the limited grant, and want of locus standi in any circumstance. The court framed five issues. Applying Mukisa Biscuits and Oraro v Mbaja, it held that a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law free of contested facts. On the leave ground it noted leave had not been sought before filing, but declined to strike out, invoking Article 159(2) on substantive justice. On res judicata, applying the Bernard Mugo Ndegwa test, it found the previous rulings had not determined the same issues on the merits. On locus standi, it held the plaintiff's claim of beneficial interest required evidence at trial and could not be disposed of preliminarily, applying Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Salat on the draconian nature of striking out. The preliminary objection was dismissed, directions issued on the plaintiff's pending notice of motion, and costs were ordered to be in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the preliminary objection meets the legal threshold

Holding

The locus standi ground fitted the Mukisa Biscuit threshold, but the grounds requiring factual enquiry could not be determined preliminarily

Reasoning

The court applied Mukisa Biscuits and Oraro v Mbaja: a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law not blurred with factual details. While the locus standi ground qualified in principle, the plaintiff's assertion of beneficial interest over the suit property required evidence, so it could not be disposed of at the preliminary stage.

p. 13
02

Whether failure to obtain leave under Section 56(2) of the Kenya Deposit Insurance Act prior to filing the suit was fatal

Holding

The court noted no leave was sought prior to commencement, but did not strike out the suit, preferring that issues be ventilated at full trial

Reasoning

Section 56(2) bars fresh suits against an institution in liquidation without court sanction. The court acknowledged that no leave was sought before filing, and that the suit touches property under liquidation, but declined to strike out, holding that procedural technicality should not trump substantive justice consistent with Article 159(2).

p. 11
03

Whether the suit is res judicata

Holding

The res judicata ground failed because the previous rulings did not determine the same issues on the merits

Reasoning

Applying Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Bernard Mugo Ndegwa test, the court found the previous suits were not heard to full hearing and their rulings did not determine the issues now raised, so the doctrine was not attracted and the parties should be allowed a full hearing.

p. 12
04

Whether the plaintiff has locus standi

Holding

The issue of beneficial interest must be ascertained through evidence at trial, not by preliminary objection

Reasoning

The court held that where the plaintiff claims beneficial interest over the suit property, determining that proprietary interest at the preliminary stage would be draconian and would deprive the plaintiff of a hearing; the matter must proceed to full trial for facts to be established.

p. 13

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection raises a pure point of law on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct
  • An issue requiring ascertaining of facts cannot be determined by way of preliminary objection
  • Res judicata requires identical issues, same parties, same title, concurrent jurisdiction and finality of the previous decision

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 2nd Defendant's Preliminary Objection dated 2nd February 2022 dismissed for lack of merit
  2. 2.The Notice of Motion application dated 18th November 2021 to be canvassed by way of written submissions
  3. 3.1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants granted 14 days leave to file and serve their Replying Affidavits
  4. 4.Plaintiff granted 21 days leave to file and serve further affidavit and written submissions
  5. 5.1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants granted 14 days upon service to file their written submissions
  6. 6.Matter to be mentioned on 6th October 2022 for further direction on the ruling date
  7. 7.Costs of the application to be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Kenya Deposit Insurance ActSection 56(2), Section 76(7)
  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21Section 7, Section 27(1)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)

Cases cited (22)

  • Rashik Kumar Punja Shah & Another v Chase Bank Limited (In Liquidation) & Another
    [2021] eKLR
  • Kwanza Estates v Dubai Bank of Kenya Limited & Another
    [2016] eKLR
  • Bespoke Insurance Brokers Limited v County Secretary, County Government of Nairobi & another
    [2016] eKLR
  • Henderson v Henderson
    (1843-60) All E.R. 378
  • ANM v PMN
    [2016] eKLR
  • Re the Matter of the Estate of Morarji Bhanji Dhanak (Deceased)
    [2000] eKLR
  • Elijah Nderitu Gachaga v Francis Gakuu Gachaga & 2 others
    [2019] eKLR
  • MWK v AMW
    [2016] eKLR
  • Nancy Mwangi T/A Worthlin Marketers v Airtel Networks (K) Limited (Celtel Kenya Ltd) & 2 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kamunye & others v Pioneer General Assurance Society Limited
    [1971] E.A. 263
  • John Florence Maritime Services Limited & another v Cabinet Secretary for Transport and Infrastructure & 3 others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 6 others
    (2014) eKLR
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Limited
    [1969] E.A. 696
  • Attorney General & Another v Andrew Mwaura Githinji & another
    [2016] eKLR
  • Oraro v Mbaja
    (2005) eKLR
  • Andrew G. Muchai v Chase Bank Limited
    (2016) eKLR
  • Bernard Mugo Ndegwa v James Nderitu Githae and 2 Others
    (2010) eKLR
  • Law Society of Kenya v Commissioner of Lands & Others
    Nakuru High Court Civil Case No. 464 of 2000
  • Alfred Njau and Others v City Council of Nairobi
    (1982) KAR 229
  • Quick Enterprises Limited v Kenya Railways Corporation
    Kisumu High Court Civil Case No. 22 of 1999
  • Presbyterian Foundation & Another v East Africa Partnership Limited & Another
    [2012] eKLR
  • Wilmot Mwadilo, Edwin Mwakaya, Amos Nyatta & Patrick Mbinga v Eliud Timothy Mwamunga & Sagalla Ranchers Limited
    [2017] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Omar (Suing on his behalf and as legal representative of the Estate of Sakinabal Ali Mohamed (Deceased) v Intergra Auctioneers (K) Company & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 231 of 2021) [2022] KEELC 2841 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Mombasa ELC suit (arising from Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 2nd February 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2841/eng@2022-07-18

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