AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in judgment· [2025] KEELC 6065 (KLR)
Kamau & 4 others (The Registered Trustees of New Testament Church Of God Kenya) v Njuguna t/a Charismata Ministries Network & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E072 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6065 (KLR)
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min briefThe bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru (M. A. Odeny, J) determines the Plaintiff's Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 8th May, 2025, challenging the Defendants' application dated 24th April, 2025 as fatally defective for not being anchored on a substantive suit. The background is that on 19th March, 2025 the court had struck out the Plaintiff's suit as time barred. The Defendants then filed an application seeking an order that the Plaintiffs deliver vacant possession of parcels Mau Summit/Molo Block 1/181 (Mutirithia) and Mau Summit/Molo Block 1/182 (Mutirithia) within 90 days, eviction in default by the Officer Commanding Molo police station, and costs. The Plaintiff submitted that the striking out of the suit divested the court of jurisdiction over any further proceedings in the file, relying on Anastacia Wagiciengo vs Ezekiel Wafula, Nyamira F.C.S vs The Chief Land Registrar and the Akasha case. The Defendants, invoking Sections 153E and 153F of the Land Act and authorities including Kariuki vs Harunani, Onyango vs Mankone and Muia vs Ndetei, argued the application was a post-judgment matter arising from execution of a decree against parties in occupation without title. Applying the Supreme Court's definition of a preliminary objection in Hassan Ali Joho vs Suleiman Said Shabal, and the decision in Registered Trustee of Archdiocese of Kisumu v Awad Auto Limited, the court held that the Defendants had filed no counter-claim and could not hinge their application on a non-existent suit. The preliminary objection was upheld, the application dated 24th April, 2025 struck out, with each party bearing their own costs.
Key legal issues
#01
Whether the Defendants' application dated 24th April, 2025 is fatally defective for want of a substantive suit
Holding
The preliminary objection was upheld and the application struck out.
Reasoning
The court had on 19th March, 2025 struck out the suit as time barred, disposing of it summarily. The Defendants had not filed a counter-claim, so the application of 24th April, 2025 sought reliefs without any surviving substantive suit. The court held it could not hinge an application on a non-existent suit and that no further proceedings could be entertained in the file.
p. 3
Legal principles established
#- 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.
- An interlocutory application cannot be sustained where the substantive suit in which it is filed has been struck out and no counter-claim exists.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 24th April, 2025 is struck out
- 2.Each party shall bear their own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Not stated in judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kamau & 4 others (The Registered Trustees of New Testament Church Of God Kenya) v Njuguna t/a Charismata Ministries Network & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E072 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6065 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6065/eng@2025-09-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.