Otieno & another v Ogonji (Sued as the Intended Administrator of the Estate of Law Okweso Aluodo alias Kweso Aluodo) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E009 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 496 (KLR)

The court examined the pleadings without interrogating the evidence, as required when assessing whether a pleading discloses a reasonable cause of action. It found the suit property was intact and part of the deceased estate when the OS was filed. Since an adverse possession claim, if proved, runs with the land as an overriding interest, the estate of the initial registered proprietor remains answerable. The suit was therefore not a non-starter and striking it out would be unjustified.

The applicants argued the succession and distribution were tainted by material non-disclosure of the pending adverse possession suit. The court declined to determine this, holding that the correct forum to question the issuance of the grant of administration is the Magistrates Court at Ukwala pursuant to section 76 of the Law of Succession Act, and that this Court has no jurisdiction to enter that arena.

Applying DT Dobie & Co (K) Ltd v Muchina, Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd v Grace Anyona Mbinda and Crescent Construction Limited v Kenya Commercial Bank Limited, the court restated that a reasonable cause of action is one with some chance of success on the allegations alone, that the court should not interrogate the evidence, and that striking out is a draconian remedy reserved for plain cases since natural justice requires no litigant be driven from the seat of justice.