Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 370 (KLR)

Koinet Limited & 3 others v Agricultural Finance Corporation; Christine Kioko & Company Advocates (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case 96 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 370 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
6 February 2025
EOE. O. Obaga
1,022 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

#

A Makueni court refused to return a land title to applicants because they couldn't prove with a CR 12 that they were company directors.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Makueni (Obaga J) on a Notice of Motion dated 6th February 2024 in which the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants/Applicants sought, principally, review of the court's orders of 25th July 2023 so that a title deed for LR No. 9148 (1283 acres), released to the firm of Tororei & Company Advocates, would be returned to court and handed to them, on the basis that they are directors and administrators of the estate of Herman Kimego Sirma, the founder of the 1st Plaintiff company. They asserted that individuals who gave Tororei & Company instructions were fraudsters. The Respondent company opposed, exhibiting a CR 12 showing the Applicants have never been directors, that they had no resolution authorising suit, and that the application was defective since an appeal was pending against the same ruling. The interested party (the advocate) filed an affidavit to clear her name, confirming she held written instructions. The court framed one issue: whether the Applicants demonstrated grounds for review. It held they had not: they produced only a company returns form, not a CR 12, and the Respondent's CR 12 excluded them as directors; no document showed their late father was a director. Only prayer 2 (leave for Miyienda & Company Advocates to come on record), which was unopposed, was granted. The remaining prayers were dismissed with no orders as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Applicants established grounds for review of the orders of 25th July 2023 releasing the title to Tororei & Company Advocates

Holding

Review refused because the Applicants failed to demonstrate by CR 12 that they are directors of the 1st Plaintiff company

Reasoning

The court traced the history: the 2nd Plaintiff repeatedly sought release of the title claiming his father was a director but could not produce evidence of directorship. Tororei & Company demonstrated directorship through a CR 12 and was allowed on record, after which the title was released to it for transmission to directors. The Applicants now claim directorship but annexed only a company returns form, not a CR 12, while the Respondent's CR 12 excludes them. Without proof of directorship there is no ground for review.

p. 3
02

Respondent's objection that review is unavailable where an appeal has been filed against the same ruling

Holding

Not expressly determined; the court disposed of the application on the merits of the review grounds

Reasoning

The Respondent argued the application was defective because one cannot seek review when an appeal against the same ruling is pending. The court did not rule on this procedural objection, instead deciding the motion on whether the Applicants proved grounds for review, namely directorship of the company. The objection therefore remained unresolved and did not form part of the ratio.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.Leave granted to the firm of Ms. Miyienda & Company Advocates to come on record (prayer 2, not opposed)
    2. 2.Prayers 3, 4 and 5 of the Notice of Motion dated 6th February 2024 dismissed
    3. 3.No orders as to costs on the dismissed prayers
    Jurisdiction invoked
    Review jurisdiction over the court's own orders of 25th July 2023 (application for review under the court's inherent/civil procedure review powers); no specific provision cited in the ruling

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "Koinet Limited & 3 others v Agricultural Finance Corporation; Christine Kioko & Company Advocates (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Case 96 of 2015) [2025] KEELC 370 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/370/eng@2025-02-06

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