Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion dated 7th August 2024 (in an Originating Summons dated 23rd October 2023)· [2025] KEELC 367 (KLR)

Karanja & another v Kamau (Environment & Land Case 22 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 367 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 February 2025
1,557 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

#

The Environment and Land Court ruled it cannot halt a succession case—challenges to inheritance must go through the succession court itself.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru (M. A. Odeny, J) disposed of a Notice of Motion dated 7th August 2024 in which the Plaintiffs/Applicants - Daniel Karanja and his wife - sought a stay of any further proceedings in Kericho CM Succession Cause No E267 OF 2022, including execution of the confirmation of grant, and a stay of execution of the ruling dated 25th June 2024, pending hearing of their Originating Summons dated 23rd October 2023 claiming adverse possession of Miti Mingi/Mbaruk Block 5/1653. The Applicants deponed that the deceased had gifted the 1st Applicant the parcel and title deed before her demise and that he had resided on the land since 2007. The Respondent countered that the Applicants had no direct interest, the deceased died intestate, custody of the title did not make them beneficiaries, and they had failed to file an objection in the succession cause. Counsel relied on Order 22 rule 22 and Order 42 rule 6(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 31 of the Law of Succession Act, with competing authorities on stay of execution and res judicata. The court framed two issues: its own jurisdiction, and whether to stay the succession proceedings and execution. Reproducing the six principles in William Odhiambo Ramogi on stay of proceedings, the court held that as an ELC seized of an adverse possession claim it had no jurisdiction to stay a succession cause; the proper remedies lay in an objection or an application for revocation or annulment of the grant under the Succession Act. The application was dismissed with costs on 6th February 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Jurisdiction of the ELC to stay proceedings and execution in a Succession Cause

Holding

The Environment and Land Court has no jurisdiction to stay proceedings or execution of orders in a Succession Cause; such grievances belong in the High Court exercising succession jurisdiction.

Reasoning

The court noted this is an Originating Summons for adverse possession before the ELC, whose mandate is established under Section 13 of the Land and Environment Court Act. The Succession Act provides procedures to challenge a succession cause - objections and applications for revocation or annulment of grants - and an aggrieved party seeking to stay succession proceedings should apply in the High Court. Each court must stick to its lane.

p. 4
02

Principles for stay of proceedings pending appellate determination

Holding

The court set out the six principles in William Odhiambo Ramogi for stay of proceedings, but found they could not assist the Applicant where the court lacks jurisdiction.

Reasoning

Counsel cited the Ramogi six-principle test for stay of proceedings (pending appeal, arguable appeal, appeal rendered nugatory, exceptional circumstances, expeditious filing). The court reproduced the test but determined the threshold question was jurisdiction: the ELC cannot stay a succession matter, and the Applicant had alternative remedies under the Succession Act which were never pursued.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Each court must stick to its lane and not encroach on the jurisdiction of another court
  • A party dissatisfied with a Succession Cause has laid-down remedies under the Law of Succession Act: filing an objection, or applying for revocation or annulment of the grant

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 7th August 2024 is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 40
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 22 rule 22
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 42 Rule 6 (2)
  • Law of Succession ActSection 31
  • The Succession Act Cap 160
  • Land and Environment Court ActSection 13

Cases cited (8)

  • Kiambu Transporters vs Kenya Breweries
  • RWW vs EKW
    [2019] KEHC 6523 (KLR)
  • Edward Kamau & James Karanja vs Hannah Mukui Gichuki & Gestetner Limited
    [2015] KEHC 2563 (KLR)
  • Haro Yonda Juaje vs Sadaka Dzengo Mbauro & Kenya Commercial Bank Limited
    [2014] KEHC 6665 (KLR)
  • Caliph Properties Limited vs Barbel Sharma & Another
    [2015] eKLR
  • Vishram Ravji Halai vs Thornton & Turpin Civil Application No Nai 15 of 1990
    [1990] KLR 365
  • James Wangalwa & Another vs Agnes Naliaka Cheseto
  • William Odhiambo Ramogi & 2 Others v the Honourable Attorney General & 3 Others
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court mandate under Section 13 of the Land and Environment Court Act; no jurisdiction found to stay proceedings in a Succession Cause

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karanja & another v Kamau (Environment & Land Case 22 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 367 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 7th August 2024 (in an Originating Summons dated 23rd October 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/367/eng@2025-02-06

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