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 and Land Appeal 28 of 2020· [2022] KEELC 13319 (KLR)

Ngutiku & another v Mugambi

Environment and Land Court
5 October 2022
792 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court struck out a repeat land application, warning parties must appeal or seek review instead of refiling identical requests.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Meru (C.K. Nzili, J) disposed of an application dated 16.8.2021 by the appellants, Teretha Mutimbi Ngutiku and Gitonga Gideon Mburugu, seeking inhibition orders against L.R No. Kibirichia/Kibirichia/333 and orders stopping the intended respondents, the sons of the deceased original respondent, from dealing with the land. The respondent had died on May 28, 2021 and the suit land had, according to a registry search annexed to the application, been transferred to his sons during the pendency of the appeal. The court noted that the orders sought were substantially similar to those in an application dismissed by a ruling dated October 4, 2020, which dismissed a request for inhibition and stay of execution on the ground that the lower court had simply dismissed the suit, leaving no positive order capable of being stayed. The appellants had neither appealed that ruling nor sought review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules or section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act. The court also observed that repeated indulgences had been granted for substitution of the deceased respondent, none of which was acted upon. Holding that the search showed the current owners of the land were different from the deceased respondent, the court reasoned that letters of administration were unnecessary and that the proper course was to seek substitution of the respondents with the successors in title to the land. The application was found incompetent, an abuse of the court process and lacking merits, and was struck out with costs to the respondents. The court further directed that a notice issue to the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for non-compliance with earlier court orders.

Key legal issues

#
01

Res judicata and abuse of process

Holding

The application was incompetent, an abuse of the court process and lacking merits, and was struck out

Reasoning

The orders sought in the application dated 16.8.2021 were identical to those in an application dismissed by a ruling dated October 4, 2020. The applicant neither appealed that ruling nor sought review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules or section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act on the basis of the new evidence. Re-litigating the same relief was therefore res judicata and an abuse of process.

02

Substitution of a deceased respondent whose land has been transferred

Holding

Where the deceased respondent's land has been transferred to successors in title, the applicant should seek to replace the respondents with those successors in title rather than pursue letters of administration

Reasoning

The search annexed as TMN '2' showed the current registered owners of the suit land are different from the deceased respondent. In those circumstances obtaining letters of administration was unnecessary; the correct remedy was an application to join or substitute the successors in title to the suit land as parties to the appeal.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party aggrieved by a ruling must appeal or seek review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules or section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act rather than file a fresh identical application
  • Where the suit land has been transferred to third parties during the pendency of an appeal, the proper course is to seek replacement of the respondents with the successors in title, not letters of administration

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 16.8.2021 is struck out with costs to the respondents
  2. 2.A notice shall issue to the appellant to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed for non-compliance with earlier court orders

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Actsection 80
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45
Jurisdiction invoked
Appellate jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over appeals from subordinate courts in land matters

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ngutiku & another v Mugambi", Case Analysis (2022). Environment and Land Appeal 28 of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/13319/eng@2022-10-05

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