Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedUnknown· [2025] KEELC 6506 (KLR)

Kulecho & another v Muchika & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E016 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6506 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 September 2025
1,671 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Kakamega struck out a preliminary objection, confirming that disputes involving contested facts must be raised by notice of motion, not objection.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The 1st defendant raised a preliminary objection dated 28th October 2024 seeking to have the entire suit struck out on two grounds: first, that the suit was sub judice within the meaning of section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act because the dispute was pending in Butali MCL & E No. 55 of 2020; and second, that the plaintiffs had instituted the suit without a grant of letters of administration ad litem as required by section 54 of the Law of Succession Act. The objection was canvassed by written submissions, to which both parties attached evidence. The court expunged that evidence from the record, holding that submissions are not made under oath and cannot be a mode of producing evidence. Framing two issues - whether the objection was a proper preliminary objection and whether it was merited - the court applied the Mukisa Biscuits test, under which a preliminary objection must be a pure point of law based on undisputed facts. Relying on Kandara Residence Association and Henry Wanyama Khaemba, the court held that sub judice requires proof of a pending suit between the same parties on the same issues, which rests on contested facts and must be raised by notice of motion supported by affidavit. Similarly, whether the plaintiff held a grant of letters of administration was a contested averment incapable of determination on a preliminary objection. The court struck out the preliminary objection with costs to the plaintiff, leaving the suit to proceed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether sub judice under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act is a pure point of law suitable for a preliminary objection

Holding

It is not; sub judice requires proof of a pending suit between the same parties on the same issues, which involves contested facts

Reasoning

The court set out three elements of sub judice: a pending suit in a competent court, substantially the same issues, and the same parties or privies. Proving these requires pleadings and evidence of the pending suit, which is contested. Such matters must be raised by notice of motion supported by affidavit, not a preliminary objection.

p. 3
02

Whether want of a grant of letters of administration under section 54 of the Law of Succession Act is a pure point of law

Holding

It is not, where possession of the grant is a contested averment; it should be raised by notice of motion

Reasoning

The plaintiff pleaded she held a grant dated 19th May 2023 naming her legal representative of the estate. Because the defendant disputed this, determining it would require evidence and a replying affidavit, which a preliminary objection cannot accommodate without prejudicing the responding party.

p. 4
03

Whether evidence annexed to written submissions can be considered

Holding

No; such evidence was expunged from the record

Reasoning

The court held that evidence may only be presented under oath, orally or by sworn affidavit. Submissions are not made under oath, so attaching evidence to them is an unlawful backdoor. All evidence attached to both parties' submissions was therefore expunged and not considered.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Sub judice and capacity questions based on contested facts cannot be raised by way of preliminary objection; they must be raised by notice of motion supported by affidavit
  • Evidence cannot be presented as an attachment to submissions since submissions are not made under oath

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Evidence attached to the parties' submissions expunged from the court record
  2. 2.The preliminary objection dated 28th October 2024 struck out with costs to the plaintiff
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court Act (original jurisdiction); suit concerning estate of Kulecho Luchebeleli

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kulecho & another v Muchika & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E016 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6506 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Unknown. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6506/eng@2025-09-24

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.