Stella Kavuli v The Estate of Peter Mulu Makula
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out an adverse possession claim because the landowner's estate was sued without naming the administrators legally appointed to represent it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Respondent has demonstrated merit in the preliminary objection on a pure point of law and whether the same should be upheld by the court
- 2.Does the Respondent have the requisite locus standi to be sued by the Applicant
Key legal issues
#Whether a preliminary objection on the ground that a deceased person's estate was sued without joining duly appointed administrators is a pure point of law
Yes - the objection raised a pure point of law and was upheld; the suit was struck out
Applying Mukisa Biscuit and Oraro v Mbaja, the court found the objection rested on the pleadings themselves, which admitted the Respondent was deceased. The pleadings showed no grant of representation or succession proceedings establishing administrators. Capacity to sue or be sued for a deceased's estate derives solely from a grant under the Law of Succession Act; absent such a grant, the suit is a nullity for want of locus standi.
Whether the Applicant's argument that administrators' names were not within her knowledge, and that amendment rather than striking out was appropriate, availed her
No - the court did not accept the bona fide mistake/amendment argument and struck out the suit
The Applicant contended she could not name administrators as that information was not within her knowledge, and cited Gailay & Roberts for amendment instead of a fresh suit. The court nonetheless held that no succession proceedings or grant were shown on the pleadings, and following Awadh v Ngala and Kihanya v Gichuri, capacity must be proved by documentation; without it the suit was incompetent, null and void.
Legal principles established
#- A suit filed against the estate of a deceased person without a grant of representation, and without suing the duly appointed personal representatives, is incompetent, null and void for want of locus standi
- A preliminary objection must be on a pure point of law, assuming the facts pleaded by the other side are correct, and cannot be raised where facts must be ascertained or judicial discretion exercised
Court orders
#- 1.The suit (originating summons) is struck out
- 2.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (Environment and Land Court) - implied; no express provision cited
Relief refused
#Applicant's claim for registration as proprietor of Parcel No. MAKUENI/UKIA/UTAATI/810 by adverse possession
Suit struck out for want of locus standi - the estate of a deceased person was sued without duly appointed personal representatives
Costs
No order as to costs - each party to bear own costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
In the end, the preliminary objection is merited. The suit is hereby struck out with no order as to costs.
The legal effect of the above omission is that the suit is incompetent, null and void.
capacity to sue or be sued as the representative of a deceased person's estate is fundamental requirement. Such capacity is derived from a grant of representation issued under the Law of Succession Act.
A preliminary objection is in the nature of what used to be a demurrer. It raises a point of law which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated 1st October 2026 but cites a Court of Appeal decision cited as [2026] KECA 1689 while submissions are dated February and April 2026 - dates internally consistent but the ruling is dated after submissions by months
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Stella Kavuli v The Estate of Peter Mulu Makula", Case Analysis (2026). ELC OS NO. E007 OF 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6054/eng@2026-10-01
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.