Mlai & 2 others v Translantic Hauliers Ltd & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E079 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5212 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a family land suit because it ignored a prior National Land Commission decision and the claimants lacked authority to sue.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Legal parameters for striking out suits
The power to strike out pleadings is discretionary and draconian, to be exercised with the greatest care and caution, and only in plain and obvious cases
The court examined Order 2 Rule 15(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and authorities including DT Dobie & Co (K) Ltd v Muchina and Crescent Construction Ltd v KCB. It found that striking out is discretionary, must be exercised with care, and courts should strive to maintain rather than strike out suits, though it is unfair to drag a person to the seat of justice when the case against him is a non-starter.
Whether the suit is barred by res judicata due to prior NLC determination
The matters in suit had been investigated and determined by the National Land Commission, whose quasi-judicial determination had not been set aside, so the suit was a collateral attack on it
The court perused annextures showing a 2018 complaint over sub-division, alienation, transfer and issuance of titles arising from Samburu Ranch, a public hearing on 28th November 2018 at Samburu Social Hall, Kwale, and a determination dated 24th January 2019 upholding the transactions and title deeds. The NLC, established under Article 67(1) and empowered by Article 67(2)(e) and (f), exercises quasi-judicial powers; the Plaintiffs' remedy lay in an appeal to the ELC under Section 16A of the Environment and Land Court Act, not a fresh suit.
Whether the Plaintiffs had locus standi to institute the suit
The Plaintiffs lacked locus standi as they produced no written authority from the clan or proof of membership or incorporation of the Group Ranch, rendering the pleadings fatally defective
Though the Plaintiffs pleaded they were appointed representatives of the Wachanda-Ndana Family, no written consent or authority from clan members was exhibited. Further, under Sections 7 and 13 of the Land (Group Representatives) Act, Cap 287 and the Community Land Act, No. 27 of 2016, Group Ranches are body corporates that sue through duly appointed Group Representatives; individual members have no capacity to sue on its behalf. The Plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate a certificate of incorporation or membership register of the Ranch.
Costs of the motion
Costs follow the event as a general rule, but the court in its discretion ordered each party to bear its own costs
Relying on Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edition, Vol.10, para 16), the court noted costs are discretionary and normally follow the event, but given the peculiar circumstances of the case, it found it reasonable, fair and proper for each party to bear its own costs.
Legal principles established
#- Striking out a pleading is a drastic, discretionary remedy exercisable only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading discloses no arguable case
- A reasonable cause of action is one with some chance of success on the allegations in the plaint alone
- Determinations of the National Land Commission pursuant to a public hearing are akin to decisions of a judicial or quasi-judicial body, and challenges to them must be mounted through the legally prescribed procedure, not collateral proceedings
- Group Ranches are body corporates with capacity to sue and be sued through duly appointed Group Representatives; individual members have no capacity to sue on its behalf without written authority
Court orders
#- 1.That the Notice of Motion application dated 15th June, 2026 to strike out the Plaint is justified and is found to be merited
- 2.That the suit by the Plaintiffs is struck out
- 3.That each party is to bear its own costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (Environment and Land Court) - inherent jurisdiction under Sections 1A, 1B, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mlai & 2 others v Translantic Hauliers Ltd & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E079 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5212 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5212/eng@2026-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.