Lowoton & another v Lorogoi & 4 others; Kamario & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Case 176 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 3181 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Plaintiffs have the locus standi to institute the instant suit
- 2.Whether the Plaintiffs' claim is merited
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the suit and counterclaim
Key legal issues
#Locus standi of the 1st Plaintiff
The 1st Plaintiff lacked capacity to sue as the allocation was to the 2nd Plaintiff (a company) and he had no authority from it
The allotment letter (P. Exh 3) named the 2nd Plaintiff as allottee. The 1st Plaintiff, being merely a director, could not assert personal ownership since a company is separate from its members. On cross-examination he admitted having no authority from the company to sue, so the suit instituted by him on its behalf was incompetent.
Validity of the allocation of Plot No. 824 to the 2nd Plaintiff
The allocation was made to a non-existent juristic person and was irregular, null and void
The company was incorporated on 26th July 2012 while the allotment letter was dated 18th July 2012. An entity that did not exist could not be allotted land, nor had it applied. The allotment letter was also a dubious 'Replacement' without authentication, indicating fraudulent record-making, justifying cancellation of the records.
Capacity of the 2nd Plaintiff to institute the suit
The suit by the 2nd Plaintiff was fatally defective for want of a board resolution authorising the suit
A company acts through its board or members in meeting, per Salomon v Salomon and the rule in Foss v Harbottle. PW1 admitted no authority or resolution authorised the suit. Without such sanction the company had no properly constituted claim before the court.
Interested Parties' counterclaim
The counterclaim was dismissed, though the court accepted the evidence that Plot 824 was carved out of KANU's plot through collusion
The court found the Interested Parties' evidence credible that Plot No. 824 was created with collusion of the 1st and 2nd Defendants and 4th Defendant's officials, and directed verification of the registry records, but nonetheless dismissed the counterclaim with no order as to costs.
Legal principles established
#- Parties are bound by their pleadings; evidence at variance with pleadings must be disregarded
- A company is a legal person separate from its members and directors; directors cannot bind the company in their personal capacity
- Locus standi goes to the root of a suit and is capable of disposing of a matter preliminarily
- A company may only sue through its board of directors or a resolution of members, per the rule in Foss v Harbottle
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st Plaintiff's case is dismissed
- 2.The suit is dismissed with costs
- 3.The Interested Parties' Counterclaim is dismissed, with each party to bear their own costs
- 4.The records about Plot No. 824 stand cancelled
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to land (Environment and Land Court Act)
Relief refused
#Permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from dealing with Plot No. 824
Plaintiffs lacked locus standi and the allocation records were found irregular and cancelled
Eviction order against the Defendants
The claim by the 1st Plaintiff failed for want of a pleaded and proved cause of action and authority to sue
Declaration that Plaintiffs are legal owners of Plot No. 824
Allocation was to a non-existent entity and was null and void
Order compelling the 4th and 5th Defendants to issue a Certificate of Lease
The suit was fatally defective for want of locus standi
Costs
Suit dismissed with costs; Interested Parties' Counterclaim dismissed with each party to bear their own costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Therefore, it was incumbent on the Plaintifis, particularly the 1st, to prove that he was the bona fide owner of parcel No. 824 situated in Lodwar Town.
could a non-existent entity be allocated or own the land plot? The simple and straight answer is “No”.
It does not require rocket science to observe and find that there were some fraudulent activities regarding records being made about Plot 824 in the 4th Defendant’s ofices, as was averred by the Interested Parties. The Court cannot countenance such. The records about Plot No. 824 stand cancelled for that matter.
Locus standi is the cornerstone of any case, and before a party files a case, he or she must be certain that they are clothed with the requisite capacity to sue and be sued.
Consequently, this suit is hereby dismissed with costs. The Interested Party’s Counterclaim is also dismissed, but each party to bear own costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment alternates between the plot measuring '100 by 100 acres' (as pleaded) and '100 feet by 100 feet' (as contended by the Defendants), an unexplained discrepancy in the size of the suit property
Internal inconsistencies in dates and party references in the judgment, e.g. the 2nd Plaintiff's certificate of incorporation described as dated 26th July 2012 in the analysis but '26th July, 2021' in the Defendants' submissions, and PW1's evidence refers to 'the 2nd Defendant' where the 2nd Plaintiff is meant
Interested Party's witness referred to writing a letter dated '19th January, 2028', an evidently erroneous date
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lowoton & another v Lorogoi & 4 others; Kamario & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Case 176 of 2016) [2025] KEELC 3181 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (ELC Suit, Lodwar). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3181/eng@2025-03-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.