Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNotice of Motion dated 3rd April 2024· [2025] KEELC 1146 (KLR)

Lei v Lemako & 3 others (Sued on behalf of the Estate of the Late Lemako kailol Nkana); Land Registrar Kajiado & another (Defendant) (Environment & Land Case E005 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 1146 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
13 March 2025
2,368 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Kajiado land court confirmed you cannot sue or defend on behalf of a deceased person's estate without letters of administration, even as a son or daughter.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Plaintiff/Applicant, Lewnantai Kusenge Lei, moved the Court under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1(a) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking review of the Court's Ruling delivered on 14th December 2023. He argued that the Ruling was internally contradictory: while declaring the Land Registrar's boundary dispute decision of 13th November 2019 null and void (because the 1st to 4th Defendants lacked letters of administration for their late father's estate), the same Ruling directed the Land Registrar Kajiado to proceed to the ground within 30 days and implement those very findings in accordance with the RIM dated 23rd January 1996. The 1st to 4th Defendants filed a preliminary objection contending that the application offended Order 45, the Land Registration Act, the Law of Succession Act and Section 16 of the Government Proceedings Act. The court framed three issues: the preliminary objection, the merits of review, and costs. Holding that the Defendants were not legal representatives of the estate, the court upheld the objection on that ground. On review, applying the principle that review lies only for an error apparent on the face of the record, the court agreed the contradiction was a patent error and deleted order 25(b) directing implementation. The suit nonetheless remains struck out until the Defendants are confirmed as administrators. The court urged the neighbouring parties to consider alternative justice systems and ordered each party to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Locus standi of the 1st to 4th Defendants

Holding

Sons of the deceased who have not taken out letters of administration are not legal representatives and cannot be sued on behalf of the estate.

Reasoning

The court had earlier found, and found again, that the 1st to 4th Defendants acknowledged they lacked locus standi not having obtained letters of administration. Sections 2, 45 and 82 of the Law of Succession Act buttress this position, so the preliminary objection on this ground was merited.

p. 4
02

Error apparent on the face of the record justifying review

Holding

The Ruling of 14th December 2023 declared the Registrar's boundary decision null and void yet simultaneously directed the Registrar to implement those findings; deleting order 25(b) rectified this patent contradiction.

Reasoning

The court applied Order 45 and the Mativo principles: review lies only for a self-evident error requiring no long debate. The internal contradiction in the ruling — nullifying the Registrar's decision while ordering its implementation — met that threshold, so the court deleted order 25(b).

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law as defined in Mukisa Biscuit.
  • Review is not an appeal in disguise; it lies only for error apparent on the face of the record.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 6th June 2024 is upheld to the extent that the 1st to 4th Defendants are not the legal representatives of the estate of the late Lemako Kailol Ole Nkana
  2. 2.Order 25(b) of the Ruling dated 14th December 2023 directing the Land Registrar Kajiado to implement his findings is deleted
  3. 3.The suit remains struck out as per the ruling dated 14th December 2023 until it is confirmed that the 1st to 4th Defendants are legal representatives of the estate
  4. 4.Each party to bear own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 80
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 27
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 Rule 1(a)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rule 1
  • Law of Succession ActCap 160; Sections 2, 45, 82
  • Land Registration Act2012
  • Government Proceedings ActSection 16

Cases cited (9)

  • Omote & another v Ogutu
    [2022] KEHC 16441 (KLR)
  • Josiah v Nyaga
    [2023] KEHC 2054 (KLR)
  • Mumby's Food Products Ltd & 2 others v Cooperative Merchant Bank Ltd
    [2008] eKLR
  • Turbo Highway Eldoret Limited vs Synergy Industrial Credit Limited
    [2016] eKLR
  • Anwar Ali & another v Monica Muthoni & another
    [2021] eKLR
  • James Mwaniki Kamau v Republic
    [2018] eKLR
  • Odinga v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission & 3 others
    [2013] KESC 8 (KLR)
  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd
    [1969] EA 696
  • Paul Mwaniki v National Hospital Insurance Fund Board of Management
    [2020] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1(a), Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lei v Lemako & 3 others (Sued on behalf of the Estate of the Late Lemako kailol Nkana); Land Registrar Kajiado & another (Defendant) (Environment & Land Case E005 of 2020) [2025] KEELC 1146 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion dated 3rd April 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1146/eng@2025-03-13

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