Kamanga & another (Suing on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty-Four (14,264) Members and /or Residents of Shompole Group Ranch, Olkirematian Group Ranch, Pakase Irrigation Scheme And Entasopia Irrigation Scheme as per the Attached Annexture JKI) v Nguruman Ltd & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 31 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 6061 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out an 11-year-old land suit because two individuals lacked authority to sue on behalf of their group ranches.
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 Notice of Preliminary Objection meets the criteria of a preliminary objection (pure point of law)
- 2.Whether the Plaintiffs have locus standi to institute and maintain this suit and Notice of Motion dated 17th November 2014
- 3.Whether the suit herein and the Notice of Motion dated 17th November 2014 are res judicata / an abuse of court process
Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection is a pure point of law
Yes; the objections on locus standi, jurisdiction and abuse of process are pure points of law capable of disposing of the suit preliminarily under the Mukisa Biscuits test
The court applied Mukisa Biscuits and subsequent authorities, holding that the objections assume the pleaded facts are correct and require no ascertainment of facts or exercise of discretion. Since jurisdiction is everything and without it a court must down its tools, the objection qualified as a proper preliminary objection and was entertained.
Whether the Plaintiffs had locus standi
No; the two Plaintiffs, being only some of the group representatives, could not sue alone in their individual names for the group ranches or the unincorporated irrigation schemes
Section 8(1) of Cap 287 requires group representatives to sue in their corporate name. The suit was filed by only two representatives without evidence of authority from the other representatives, and without compliance with Order 1 rules 8 and 13 CPR regarding notice and written authority for representative suits. Unincorporated irrigation schemes could only sue through registered or elected officials. The Plaintiffs also lacked locus to seek stay of the Kericho execution orders as they were not parties to that suit.
Whether the suit is res judicata and an abuse of court process
Yes; the same land parcel has been litigated since 1974, and this suit collaterally attacks final judgments, including the Kericho HCCC No. 65 & 66 of 2009 judgment still capable of execution
The suit property, Narok Nguruman Kamorora 1, had been the subject of the 1974 Land Adjudication Officer's decision, the Narok RMCC suit upheld by the Court of Appeal, and the Kericho High Court judgment of 2nd December 2009, none of which was set aside. Under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and Omondi v National Bank of Kenya, adding new parties or causes of action cannot evade res judicata. Stay of execution should have been sought in the court issuing the execution orders; filing afresh elsewhere amounted to forum shopping and abuse of process.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must be a pure point of law, assumed on the correctness of pleaded facts, capable of disposing of the suit without ascertaining facts or exercising discretion
- A group ranch can only sue through its group representatives in the corporate name under section 8(1) of the Land (Group Representatives) Act; individual members or individual representatives lack capacity to sue on behalf of the group ranch
- Locus standi goes to jurisdiction; a suit by a party without capacity is a nullity
- Res judicata cannot be evaded by adding new parties or causes of action; all claims must be brought at once
- A court lacks jurisdiction to stay execution of a decree issued by another court of competent jurisdiction executing its own valid judgment; stay should be sought in the court that issued the execution orders
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st Defendant's Preliminary Objection dated 5th December 2014 is upheld
- 2.The Plaintiffs' entire suit and the Notice of Motion Application dated 17th November 2014 are struck out
- 3.Costs of the Preliminary Objection awarded to the 1st Defendant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court jurisdiction under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (not expressly quoted in the ruling)
Relief refused
#Leave to proceed / continuation of the representative suit and the Notice of Motion dated 17th November 2014
Plaintiffs lacked locus standi and the suit was res judicata and an abuse of court process
Costs
Costs to the 1st Defendant
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.
Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a Court has no power to make one more step. Where a Court had no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence.
a Preliminary Objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit.
A suit filed and or brought by Group representatives must be in their corporate name, and the actions taken are for the group as a whole.
Parties cannot evade the doctrine of res judicata by merely adding other parties or causes of action in a subsequent suit. They are bound to bring all their cases at once.
Consequently, this court upholds the 1st Defendant's Preliminary Objection dated 5th December 2014 and proceeds to strike out the Plaintifis' entire suit and the Notice of Motion Application dated 17th November2014, with costs to the 1st Defendant.
It is so ordered.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the Kericho consolidation inconsistently, once as HCCC No. 65 & 66 of 2014 and elsewhere as of 2009
The Plaints allege the suit land was hived off as 6,970 Hectares but paragraph 7 states the new Land Certificate issued 28th August 1984 measured 26,993 Hectares, while the 1st Defendant's defence dates the registration of Nguruman Kamorora Group Ranch to 19th June 1975
The outcome of Constitution Petition No 625 of 2006, raising similar issues, is not stated in the record
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamanga & another (Suing on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of Fourteen Thousand Two Hundred and Sixty-Four (14,264) Members and /or Residents of Shompole Group Ranch, Olkirematian Group Ranch, Pakase Irrigation Scheme And Entasopia Irrigation Scheme as per the Attached Annexture JKI) v Nguruman Ltd & 4 others (Environment and Land Case 31 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 6061 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided (originally filed at Machakos ELC on 17th November 2014; transferred to Kajiado ELC and later Narok ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6061/eng@2025-09-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.