Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutEnvironment & Land Case 11 of 2020· [2022] KEELC 12677 (KLR)

Nkoitiko v Lengeny

Environment and Land Court
27 September 2022
2,159 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court struck out a land ownership claim because the same dispute was already pending in another court between the same parties.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Narok (C.G. Mbogo, J) determines a notice of preliminary objection dated March 17, 2021 raised by the defendant, Ita Ole Lengeny, against the plaintiff Martinei Ole Nkoitiko's originating summons claiming ownership of plot Narok/Cis-Mara/Ewaso-Nyiro/206 by adverse possession. The defendant objected that the claim was sub-judice, being directly in issue in ELC Case No 198 of 2018 (Ita Ole Lengeny v Martinei Ole Nkoitiko) pending before the Chief Magistrate's Court at Narok, where the same parties litigate over the same parcel, and that the suit was therefore an abuse of process under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act. The plaintiff filed no response or submissions. The court applied the Mukisa Biscuit test, holding that a sub-judice plea is a pure point of law properly raised as a preliminary objection. It then applied section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Supreme Court's decision in Kenya National Commission on Human Rights v Attorney General, which sets out the elements of res sub-judice and directs that the later-filed suit be stayed. Comparing the pleadings in both files, the court found the parties and subject matter identical, the only difference being the procedural approach, and noted that the earlier magistrates' court suit remained active with a mention date of November 15, 2022. The preliminary objection succeeded; the originating summons dated June 12, 2021 was struck out, with each party bearing its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the adverse possession suit is sub-judice given ELC Case No 198 of 2018 before the Chief Magistrate's Court

Holding

Yes; the parties and subject matter (plot Narok Cis-Mara/Ewaso-Nyiro/206) are the same in both suits, and the earlier suit is active, so the later originating summons is struck out

Reasoning

The court applied section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and the Supreme Court's articulation of the sub-judice rule. Both suits involve the same parties (roles reversed) and the same parcel of land; only the procedural approach differs. The earlier magistrates' court suit was active with a mention date, and proceeding would risk conflicting decisions and unfairness.

p. 4
02

Whether the objection qualifies as a proper preliminary objection

Holding

It does; sub-judice is a point of law which, if argued as a preliminary point, may dispose of the suit

Reasoning

Relying on Mukisa Biscuit, the court held that a preliminary objection raises a pure point of law on the assumption that all facts pleaded by the other side are correct. The sub-judice plea requires no ascertainment of facts or exercise of discretion, so it properly proceeds as a preliminary objection.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Where two suits between the same parties over the same subject matter are pending, the later-filed suit ought to be stayed or struck out under the sub-judice rule
  • A plea of sub-judice is a pure point of law that may be raised as a preliminary objection

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of preliminary objection dated March 17, 2021 succeeds
  2. 2.The originating summons dated June 12, 2021 is struck out
  3. 3.Each party to bear its own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; preliminary objection under Order 51 rules 4 and 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules and section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nkoitiko v Lengeny", Case Analysis (2022). Environment & Land Case 11 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/12677/eng@2022-09-27

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