Wangari Maathai v Kenya Times Media Trust (Kenya Times Complex)
The bottom line
#The High Court struck out Wangari Maathai's suit to stop the Kenya Times complex at Uhuru Park because she had no personal legal right to sue over a public planning issue.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Cause of action
The plaint discloses no cause of action against the Defendant
The plaint alleged breaches of planning laws and bylaws, public opposition and constitutional concerns, but alleged no right of the plaintiff infringed, no damage or anticipated damage, and no breach of any rights public or private in relation to her. Such allegations disclose no cause of action justifying trial.
Locus standi
The plaintiff, suing personally, had no locus standi
Counsel confirmed the action was personal, not representative or relator. The plaint alleged breaches of public laws but not that the plaintiff had any right to sue over them or suffered damage. Only the Attorney General may sue on behalf of the public; personal moral or social views are immaterial to standing.
Objections to the preliminary objection
All three grounds of objection were dismissed
The plaintiff argued striking out was premature because the plaint was unserved and amendable, and that an interlocutory court cannot decide merits. The court held Order VI rule 13 applies at any stage without evidence, non-service does not shield a plaint from striking out, and amendment rights do not render rule 13 inoperative.
Temporary injunction application
Dismissed as a non-starter
With the plaint struck out there was no substratum for the injunction. Independently, the application failed to comply with conditions in Order XXIX and the supporting undated affidavit failed to comply with Order XVIII of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Legal principles established
#- Only the Attorney General may sue on behalf of the public; a private plaintiff alleging breaches of public law must show a right of action of her own
- A plaint may be struck out at any stage under Order VI rule 13(1)(a) if it discloses no reasonable cause of action, without hearing evidence
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiff's three grounds of objection to the preliminary point dated 4 December 1989 are dismissed with costs
- 2.The preliminary objection dated 1 December 1989 is upheld on both grounds argued
- 3.The plaint is struck out on both grounds, with costs to the Defendant
- 4.The plaintiff's application dated 27 November 1989 for a temporary injunction is dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction; Civil Procedure Act and Civil Procedure Rules (Order VI rule 13, Order IV, Order XXIX, Order XVIII)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wangari Maathai v Kenya Times Media Trust (Kenya Times Complex)", Case Analysis (1989). . Source:
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.