Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Murgor v Kios (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E003 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 2489 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT NAKURU ELC MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. E003 OF 2026 JAMES MURGOR ……………………………………………… APPLICANT VERSUS FRANCIS SIRMA KIOS…………………………………… RESPONDENT RULING 1. This ruling is in respect of the Notice of Motion dated 19 th January 2026 brought under Section 4 of the appellate Jurisdiction Act, Order 22 Rule 6 & 7 (2), Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rule and Section 3A, 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. It seeks orders: (1) (2) Spent That this honorable court be pleased to order the Office Commanding Station (O.C.S) Subukia to provide security during sub-division and or survey of the property known as Waseges/Nyamanithi Block 4/57. (3) Costs of this Application be provided for. ELC MISC E003 OF 2026 1

page 1 of 6

3. The grounds are on the face of the Application and are set out in paragraphs a to h. 4. The Application is supported by the affidavit of James Kipkoros Murgor, the Applicant sworn on the 19th January 2026. 5. In response to the Notice of Motion, the Respondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 10 th February 2026 citing six(6) grounds. The main ground is that this Honorable Court is functus officio and lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present application, the suit having been instituted without authority as provided under paragraph 82(a) of the Law of Succession Act Cap 160 Laws of Kenya. 6. The Notice of Motion was canvassed by way of written submissions. 7. The Applicant’s submissions are dated 16 th February 2026. They raise three issues for determination; i. Whether the OCS Subukia should be ordered to provide security during the sub-division and or survey of the property know as Wasege/Nyamamithi Block 4/57. ELC MISC E003 OF 2026 2

page 2 of 6

ii. Whether the preliminary objection dated 10th February, 2026 by the Respondent is merited. iii. 8. Who should bear the Costs of the suit. Counsel submitted that the High Court in Civil Suit No.151 of 2004; Francis Sirma Arap Koros vs Kibore Sigilai Tele held that the registration of the Respondent’s father was fraudulent and dismissed the suit and allowed the counter claim. The Honorable court directed that the Land Registrar, Nakuru do rectify the register by cancelling the name of the Respondent father and substituting thereof the name of the Applicant’s father. 9. It is also submitted that the said Judgment has not been set aside as the Appeal to the Court of appeal and the subsequent applications were all dismissed. 10. The Applicant further submitted that the Respondent has on several occasions interfered with the Applicant’s quest to subdivide the property and attempts to have a surveyor have been met with resistance since the Respondent hires goons to curtail the process. Reliance is placed on the case of Wildlife Lodges Ltd Vs County Council of Narok and Another [2005] 2 EA 344 ELC MISC E003 OF 2026 3

page 3 of 6

(HCK); Central Bank of Kenya & Another Vs Ratilal Automobiles Limited & Others Civil Application No.Nai 257 of 2006. 11. Counsel submitted that the Preliminary Objection is not merited because the Applicant obtained Grant of letters of Administration before filing the suit on behalf of his Deceased Father. Reliance is placed on International & the case Another vs of Trouistik Jane Union Mbeyu & Another[2008] IKLR (G&F) 730. The Applicant prays that the application be allowed. The Respondent’s submissions are dated 10 th February 12. 2026. He submitted that a litigant ought to obtain Limited Grant ad litem or Grant of letters of Administration intestate before filing a suit on behalf of the estate of deceased. He has put forward the cases of Juliana Adoyo Ongunga & Another vs Francis Kiberenge Bondeva (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Fanuel Evans Amudavi (deceased) Trouistik Union Internatonal & Another Vs Jane Mbeyu & Another(supra );Wallace Kinuthia Vs Anthony Ndungu Muongi & 3 others [2013] eKLR. ELC MISC E003 OF 2026 4

page 4 of 6

13. He prays that the Application be struck out with costs for lack of locus as the subject property is an Estate of a deceased person and the Respondent does not have the said authority. 14. I have considered the Notice of Motion, the affidavit in support, the Preliminary Objection herein, and the written submissions. 15. It is not in dispute that the Judgment delivered in HCCC NO.151 of 2004; Francis Sirma Arap Koros vs Kibore Sigilal Tele has never been set aside. The Appeal and the subsequent applications were dismissed. 16. These facts have not be rebutted by the Respondent. The main contention is that the Applicant herein lacks the locus standi to bring this application. 17. The Applicant has demonstrated that he is the legal representative of the Estate of his late father. 18. I find merit in this Application and grant the orders sought namely: (a) That the Officer Commanding Station Subukia Police Stations hereby ordered to provide security during the property sub-division known as and or survey Waseges/Nyamamithi of the Block 4/57. ELC MISC E003 OF 2026 5

page 5 of 6

(b) That there be no orders as to costs. Ruling dated, signed and delivered virtually at Nakuru this 29th day of April 2026. L KOMINGOI JUDGE In presence of :Mr Bitok for the Applicant The Respondent in person Court Assistant: Derick ELC MISC E003 OF 2026 6

page 6 of 6

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.