Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutEnvironment & Land Case E005 of 2023· [2023] KEELC 19051 (KLR)

Koirak & 7 others v Loonkushu & 14 others; Naroosura Group Ranch (Interested Party)

Environment and Land Court
26 July 2023
CMC.G. Mbogo
3,685 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~15 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a group ranch dispute, ruling it must first be resolved by the Land Adjudication Officer, not the court.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs, members of Naroosura Group Ranch, moved the court by notice of motion dated 10th March 2023 under Order 40 Rule 1 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, seeking a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from convening meetings of the group ranch scheduled for 14th March 2023 or thereafter. They deposed that the ranch, incorporated in 1970, was in its final phase of dissolution with land being subdivided to members, and that the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement had improperly halted subdivision and called a meeting to resolve alleged leadership wrangles under political influence. The 1st to 10th defendants opposed, asserting the dispute was before the dispute resolution mechanism under the Land Adjudication Act, and filed a preliminary objection contending the court lacked jurisdiction under Section 10(1) and that the suit was premature and barred by Section 30(1). The plaintiffs filed no submissions. Applying Mukisa Biscuit, the court found the objection raised a pure point of law. It held the leadership wrangles were resolvable by the Adjudication Officer under Section 10(1), that allegations of political interference were speculative and unproven, and that the court therefore lacked jurisdiction at this stage. The notice of motion and the amended plaint were struck out, the preliminary objection upheld, the interim orders of 14th March 2023 vacated, and each party ordered to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the preliminary objection on jurisdiction merited upholding

Holding

Yes - the objection raised a pure point of law: the dispute is governed by the Land Adjudication Act's mechanisms and the court lacks jurisdiction at this stage

Reasoning

Applying Mukisa Biscuit, the court found the objection raised a pure point of law since the dispute concerns land adjudication. The letters from the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement showed the dispute was within the adjudication process. Allegations of political interference were speculative and unproven. The leadership wrangles could be resolved by the Adjudication Officer under Section 10(1), so the court could not entertain the suit.

02

Whether the temporary injunction application could be granted

Holding

No - the application was struck out for want of jurisdiction; the injunction could not issue

Reasoning

Since the court found it lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit at this stage, the notice of motion seeking injunctive relief and the amended plaint were struck out, the preliminary objection was upheld, and interim orders issued on 14th March 2023 were vacated. The plaintiffs did not file written submissions.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law on undisputed facts; where facts are contested it falls outside its ambit
  • The Land Adjudication Officer has jurisdiction over claims relating to interests in land in an adjudication area, including leadership wrangles affecting adjudication

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion application dated 10th March 2023 and the undated amended plaint filed 13th March 2023 are struck out
  2. 2.The preliminary objection dated 20th April 2023 is upheld
  3. 3.The orders issued by the court on 14th March 2023 are vacated
  4. 4.Each party to bear their own costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (Environment and Land Court); jurisdiction contested under Sections 10, 26, 27, 29 and 30 of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap 284

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Koirak & 7 others v Loonkushu & 14 others; Naroosura Group Ranch (Interested Party)", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case E005 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/19051/eng@2023-07-26

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