Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissed· [2024] KEELC 4893 (KLR)

Nyakiti & another ((Suing as the Legal Administrator/ Beneficiaries of the Estate of Johanes Awiti Ayieko (Deceased)) v Amolo & 2 others (Land Case E007 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 4893 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 June 2024
1,622 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kisumu land court kept the lawsuit alive but refused to stop the defendants dealing with disputed land, since the plaintiffs couldn't prove a strong case yet.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kisumu (E. Asati, J) disposed of a preliminary objection by the 2nd Defendant and a Notice of Motion by the Plaintiffs seeking a temporary injunction over land parcels Kisumu/Nyahera/2303 and 2304, originally part of Kisumu/Nyahera/158 owned by Joanes Awiti Ayieko, deceased. The 2nd Defendant objected that the suit was a nullity as filed against a deceased 1st Defendant, was time-barred under section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act given titles issued in 2006 and 2007, and was frivolous and filed for an improper purpose. The Plaintiffs countered that the objection raised factual matters requiring evidence, that abatement would apply only against the deceased Defendant, and that fraud was discovered only in July 2023 when they conducted a search for succession proceedings. Applying the Mukisa Biscuits test, the court held the matters raised were all matters of evidence, struck-out was a last resort, and disallowed the objection. On the injunction, applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the court found no prima facie case or irreparable injury demonstrated; the Respondents claimed registered title and occupation since 2006 and 2007 and the balance of convenience favoured them. Both the preliminary objection and the injunction application were dismissed with costs to the Respondents. The suit proceeds to full hearing.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the preliminary objection was a pure point of law

Holding

The preliminary objection failed because the matters raised required production of evidence to prove

Reasoning

The court applied the Mukisa Biscuits test. It found that whether the 1st Defendant died before suit, whether fraud was proved, and when the Plaintiffs learnt of the alleged fraudulent transfer are all matters of evidence, not pure points of law. Hence the objection could not dispose of the suit at that stage.

p. 3
02

Whether a temporary injunction should issue

Holding

The injunction was declined as the applicants did not establish a prima facie case or irreparable injury and the balance of convenience favoured the Respondents

Reasoning

Applying Giella v Cassman Brown, the court held that the applicants had not demonstrated a prima facie case with a probability of success or irreparable injury. The Respondents claimed title and occupation of the suit land since 2006 and 2007 and, prima facie, being registered owners, are entitled to enjoyment of the land until contrary findings, tilting the balance of convenience in their favour.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection can only succeed if based on pure points of law arising from the pleadings and fails where facts must be ascertained through evidence or where the court's discretion is sought
  • Striking out pleadings or suits is a last resort reserved for hopelessly defective pleadings

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 11th March 2024 is disallowed
  2. 2.The application for temporary injunction dated 26th February 2024 is declined
  3. 3.Costs to the Respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya 2010Article 23
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B and 3A
  • Limitation of Actions Act Cap 22 Laws of KenyaSection 7
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 26

Cases cited (9)

  • Viktar Maina Ngunjiri & 4 Others vs Attorney General & 6 Others
    [2018]eKLR
  • Pratab Chand Mehta vs Chrisma Devi Mehta
    ALT 1988 Delhi 267
  • Mehta vs Shah
    (1965)EA 321
  • Pontrilas Investment Limited vs Central Bank of Kenya & Another
    (Reference No.8 of 2017) East African Court of Justice eKLR
  • D.T. Dobie & Company Limited vs Joseph Mbaria Muchina & Another
    (1980)eKLR
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Company Ltd vs West End Distributors Ltd
    (1969)
  • Alice Chemutari Too vs Nickson Kipkurui Korir & 2 Others
    (2015)eKLR
  • Zacharia Wambugu Gathimu vs David Wangari Maina
    ELC Case No.244 of 2017
  • Giella vs Casman Brown
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 23 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 51 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Rules 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Nyakiti & another ((Suing as the Legal Administrator/ Beneficiaries of the Estate of Johanes Awiti Ayieko (Deceased)) v Amolo & 2 others (Land Case E007 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 4893 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4893/eng@2024-06-20

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