Republic v County Government of Mombasa & 3 others; Andima (Ex parte Applicant); Abdalla and Abdalla (As as administrators of the Estate of Abdulhakim Abdalla) (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 114 of 2010) [2025] KEELC 7781 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that an interested party in a case cannot ask the court to strike out another party's pleadings.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the interested party has locus standi to seek striking out of the ex parte applicant's pleadings
The interested party lacks capacity; the application is incompetent
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu, the court held that a suit is owned by the parties, and an interested party joined to a suit cannot seek to strike out pleadings on grounds of defectiveness. The decision binds this court under the doctrine of stare decisis; ignoring it would encourage a nullity, citing Macfoy v United Africa Co. Ltd. Locus standi is a preliminary jurisdictional issue that had to be determined first, and its resolution disposed of the application.
Whether the remaining grounds of the application (amendment under Order 53 Rules 4(2) and 1(1), and the second-trial argument) could be determined
Not determined, as the application failed on the preliminary locus standi issue
The court held that locus standi goes to the jurisdiction of the court and must be dealt with before considering other issues. Having found that the interested party lacked capacity to bring the application, the court found it unnecessary to reach the merits of the amendment and retrial arguments, dismissing the application in its entirety.
Legal principles established
#- An interested party joined to a suit cannot be heard to seek orders to strike out pleadings on grounds of defective pleadings.
- Procedural lapses that do not go to jurisdiction or occasion prejudice should not lead to striking out pleadings.
- Costs follow the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Court orders
#- 1.That the application by the interested party dated 30th January 2025, is without merit, and is hereby struck out.
- 2.The interested party to bear the costs of the ex-parte applicant.
- On appeal from
- Court of Appeal
- Andima v Municipal Council of Mombasa & 4 others Civil Appeal Number 149 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Judicial review jurisdiction under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Article 159 of the Constitution; Environment and Land Court Act No. 19 of 2011, section 19(1)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v County Government of Mombasa & 3 others; Andima (Ex parte Applicant); Abdalla and Abdalla (As as administrators of the Estate of Abdulhakim Abdalla) (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application 114 of 2010) [2025] KEELC 7781 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC MISC JR NO. 114 OF 2010. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7781/eng@2025-11-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.