Trustees Catholic Dioces of Nakuru t/a Arch Bishop Ndingi Secondary School Also Known as Lake View Secondary v Ngure & 4 others (Environment & Land Case 12 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 3326 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a 20-year-old land dispute because no new plaint was ever filed after the original case was withdrawn.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether a suit can survive withdrawal in the subordinate court without the filing of a fresh plaint in the transferee court
No. Withdrawal and transfer are distinct and sequential processes; withdrawal terminates the matter, and a new suit must be instituted by plaint. No plaint was ever filed in Nairobi HCCC No. 1156 of 2005, Nakuru HCCC No. 101 of 2009 or Nakuru ELC No. 260 of 2012, so no valid suit was before any of those courts.
The court traced the matter's movement from Naivasha PMCC through the Nairobi and Nakuru High Courts to the ELC and perused all the files. It found no plaint had ever been filed after the 2005 withdrawal order. Since Order 3 Rule 1 requires suits to be instituted by plaint, and applying Mcfoy v United Africa Company Ltd, the proceedings were void ab initio and could not be cured by Article 159(2)(d).
Whether the Plaintiff's suit filed in a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction and irregularly transferred was a nullity
Yes — the court found the suit fatally defective. The original suits were filed in the Naivasha Principal Magistrate's Court without pecuniary jurisdiction, and the purported withdrawal, transfer and consolidation never produced a validly instituted suit.
The court observed that jurisdiction and legitimacy of a suit are established through the plaint, which sets the boundaries of the dispute. Relying on Mcfoy, an act that is void is in law a nullity that collapses. The absence of a plaint meant there was no case before the previous courts or the current court, warranting striking out.
Whether the defence of the 4th and 5th Defendants should be struck out and their defence amended
The court did not determine these applications on their merits; with the striking out of the Plaintiff's case, they were overtaken by events.
The 2nd and 3rd Defendants' application to strike out the 4th and 5th Defendants' defence and the 4th and 5th Defendants' application to amend their defence became academic once the court found no valid suit existed. The judgment's only operative order is the striking out of the Plaintiff's case with costs.
Legal principles established
#- A suit must be instituted by presentation of a plaint; where a suit is withdrawn and no fresh plaint is filed in the destination court, no suit exists and the proceedings are a nullity
- A void act is a nullity that cannot be saved by Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution (the overriding objective)
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaintiff's suit is struck out with costs
- 2.It is so ordered (judgment delivered at Naivasha via Microsoft Teams on 24th April 2025)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) Constitution (Environment and Land Court) — jurisdiction over the suit land; matter before the court following transfers from the Magistrates' Court and High Court
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Trustees Catholic Dioces of Nakuru t/a Arch Bishop Ndingi Secondary School Also Known as Lake View Secondary v Ngure & 4 others (Environment & Land Case 12 of 2024) (Environment and Land) [2025] KEELC 3326 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC No. 12 of 2024 (formerly Nakuru ELC No. 260 of 2012, Nakuru HCCC No. 101 of 2009, Nairobi HCCC No. 1156 of 2005, Naivasha PMCC No. 435 of 2004 and consolidated matters). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3326/eng@2025-04-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.