Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the extract (Originsing Summons, Environment and Land Court, Kajiado)· [2024] KEELC 1177 (KLR)

Muiyae & another v Muraya (As the Administrator of the Estate of the Late Samuel Ngugi Muraya) & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 2B of 2020) [2024] KEELC 1177 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
5 February 2024
987 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court struck out a land suit over Ngong parcels because it re-litigated an already-decided succession matter, sued deceased defendants, and used the wrong procedure.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kajiado (M.N. Gicheru J) on a preliminary objection dated 22 February 2022 raised by the 1st and 2nd defendants in a suit commenced by originating summons over parcels LR Ngong/Ngong/4348 and 4354. The objection raised three grounds: res judicata as against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants; that the suit was a nullity ab initio as against the 1st and 3rd defendants because it was filed after their deaths; and that originating summons was an inappropriate mode of commencement. The defendants argued that the same parcels had been the subject of Succession Cause No. 412 of 2011 (Estate of Peter Murani Muyai), decided by Musyoka J, and no appeal was preferred. The plaintiffs countered that the succession cause concerned distribution, not a land dispute; that the parties differed; and that the High Court lacked land jurisdiction. The court upheld all three grounds. It found the suit res judicata, holding that the same parties and land were involved and the only recourse was appeal, the High Court having unlimited original civil jurisdiction under Article 165(3)(a). It held Order 24 CPR does not permit suing dead persons, noting Samuel Ngugi Muraya died on 19 July 2013, more than six and a half years before filing, making the suit an abuse of process. It also held the disputed facts required a plaint, not originating summons. The entire suit was struck out with costs to the 1st and 2nd defendants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Res judicata

Holding

The suit is res judicata - same parties, same subject land (LR Ngong/Ngong/4348 and 4354) as Succession Cause No. 412 of 2011 decided by the High Court

Reasoning

Succession Cause No. 412 of 2011 at Milimani Nairobi concerned the same parcels. The parties in this suit are the same as those in the succession cause. The High Court already determined ownership; the proper remedy was an appeal, not a fresh suit. The claim that the High Court lacked jurisdiction over land fails because under Article 165(3)(a) the High Court has unlimited original civil jurisdiction, including distribution of estates.

p. 2
02

Filing suit against deceased persons

Holding

The suit against the 1st and 3rd defendants, who were dead at filing, was a nullity/abuse of process

Reasoning

Order 24 CPR only allows continuation of suits where a party dies mid-suit; it does not permit filing against a dead person. The death certificate shows Samuel Ngugi Muraya died on 19/7/2013, yet the suit was filed on 30/1/2020, over six and a half years later. A dead person cannot defend themselves, making such a suit an abuse of court process.

p. 2
03

Mode of commencement of suit

Holding

The originating summons was inappropriate; the suit raised substantial disputed facts requiring a plaint

Reasoning

Order 37 CPR confines originating summons to matters unlikely to involve substantial dispute of fact. This suit concerned disputed sale agreements, disputed subdivision, cancellation of titles, and eviction of 23 parties - all hotly contested facts. Though a suit should not be struck out unless irredeemable, commencing by originating summons was fatally inappropriate.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Suing a dead person is improper and an abuse of court process; Order 24 CPR contemplates continuation of suits where a party dies, not filing against deceased persons
  • A decision of a court of competent jurisdiction can only be challenged on appeal, not by a fresh suit; otherwise res judicata applies

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Upheld the preliminary objection dated 22/2/2022 on all three grounds
  2. 2.Struck out the entire suit
  3. 3.Awarded costs to the 1st and 2nd defendants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159(2)(d)
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 165(3)(a)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 24
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 37 (including Rule 9)

Cases cited (1)

  • High Court Probate and Administration Cause No. 412/2011 - The Estate of Peter Murani Muyai
    Succession Cause No. 412 of 2011, Milimani Nairobi
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 165(3)(a) of the Constitution referenced on the High Court's jurisdiction; the objection decided under the Civil Procedure Rules and Article 159(2)(d)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Muiyae & another v Muraya (As the Administrator of the Estate of the Late Samuel Ngugi Muraya) & another (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 2B of 2020) [2024] KEELC 1177 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the extract (Originsing Summons, Environment and Land Court, Kajiado). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/1177/eng@2024-02-05

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