Giant View Investments Limited v Land Registrar, Kiambu & another (Land Case E207 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5262 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out a company's land dispute suit because no board resolution authorized it, reinforcing that companies must file suits through properly authorized officers.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the objection that the Plaintiff lacked authority/locus standi to institute the suit was a valid preliminary objection
The court found the issue of legal capacity to be a point of law going to the root of the suit, held that the Plaintiff produced no board resolution authorizing the suit, and upheld the objection, striking out the suit and the application
The court reiterated the Mukisa Biscuit and Oraro v Mbaja tests: a preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law. It held that legal capacity is a critical point of law going to the root of a suit. Although the 2nd Defendant's objection intertwined with facts, the court examined the record, found no board resolution or written authority from the three Directors authorizing Samuel Ayuya Getembe, and concluded the Plaintiff lacked locus standi.
Whether the Plaintiff could claim in respect of the purchase of the suit properties
On the Plaintiff's own showing, the properties were purchased for the 2nd Defendant and not for the Plaintiff, so the Plaintiff had no claim in the agreement and lacked locus standi
The Plaintiff's own supporting affidavit stated that it purchased the suit properties for the 2nd Defendant. The court reasoned that the company owning the land sues and is sued through authorized officers once a board resolution is made. Having disclaimed its own interest in the sale agreement and lacking authorization, the Plaintiff had no basis to sue or seek injunctive relief.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law and cannot be raised where facts have to be ascertained
- Where a company intends to institute a suit, a board resolution authorizing the suit must be made and the authorization must be in writing
- A company is a legal person that sues and is sued in its own name through its authorized officers
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection raised by the 2nd Defendant is allowed
- 2.The suit is struck out
- 3.The application dated 19/12/2024 (dated 9/12/2024) is also struck out
- 4.The Plaintiff shall bear the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act No. 19 of 2011; Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Giant View Investments Limited v Land Registrar, Kiambu & another (Land Case E207 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5262 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5262/eng@2025-07-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.