Japhet Choga Charero and Samuel Charero (suing as administrators of the estate of Charero Choga Mwadzuwa, deceased) v Julie Kisaka and the Land Registrar Kilifi County
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court at Malindi struck out a family's challenge to a Kilifi land title because they had already benefited from the same subdivision in succession proceedings.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act barred the suit
The objection failed as a pure point of law because the constituent elements of res judicata could not be established without evidence
The earlier Mombasa suit concerned the mother title and a third party's claim; the present Plaint challenges post-death subdivision and registration of Title 7222. Whether the subsequent dealings were valid, and whether the Plaintiffs claim under the same title as earlier parties, are evidentiary questions unsuitable for a preliminary objection.
Whether the suit was time-barred under Section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act
The limitation objection failed as a pure point of law; time began running at latest in 2021 when the Plaintiffs conducted succession proceedings showing knowledge of the subdivision, so the 2026 suit was within time
Although Section 26 postpones limitation where fraud is pleaded, the Plaintiffs' own conduct - succession proceedings in 2021 over two of three subdivided portions - demonstrated actual knowledge or constructive discovery of the subdivision. The suit filed in 2026, about five years later, was not statute-barred on the pleadings.
Whether the suit should be struck out under Order 2 rule 15 as scandalous, vexatious and an abuse of process
The suit was struck out because the Plaintiffs' conduct amounted to approbation and reprobation - relying on the subdivision for succession while challenging the third resultant portion as fraudulent
The Plaintiffs participated in succession over two subdivided portions in 2021 while omitting the portion now challenged, and did not rebut the 1st Defendant's 16-year occupation. Permitting the suit would allow them to accept a benefit of the subdivision while impeaching it, rendering the claim vexatious and abusive.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection is confined to points of law and cannot rest on contested facts requiring evidence
- When fraud is pleaded in a land recovery action, limitation under Section 26 runs from discovery of the fraud or when it could with reasonable diligence have been discovered
- A party cannot approbate and reprobate - accept a benefit from a transaction while impeaching another consequence of the same transaction
- A suit should only be summarily dismissed where it is plainly hopeless and incurable by amendment
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection dated 24th March 2026 is dismissed with no orders as to costs
- 2.The 1st Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 24th March 2026 is allowed in terms of prayers 2, 3 and 4, with costs awarded to the 1st Defendant (discharge of the orders of 5th February 2026; striking out of the Plaintiffs' suit; costs in the cause)
- 3.The Plaintiffs' application dated 5th February 2026 for temporary injunctive relief stands dismissed with costs awarded to the 1st Defendant
- 4.The file is marked as closed
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes concerning Title No. KILIFI/MTWAPA/7222
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Japhet Choga Charero and Samuel Charero (suing as administrators of the estate of Charero Choga Mwadzuwa, deceased) v Julie Kisaka and the Land Registrar Kilifi County", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLC E018 OF 2026. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5960/eng@2026-09-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.