Priscillah Jepkorir Hamina v Kipkemboi Arap Samoei

late Amina Chepngetich Tanui alias Jepngetich Tamurei Tanui. iii. THAT no cause of action has arisen against the Respondent, and the pleadings on their face disclose no reasonable cause of action against the Respondent. 2. Also, the preliminary objection is in opposition of the originating summons dated 24th February 2026 seeking the following orders: a) That a declaration do issue to the effect that the Respondent holding herein; L.R No. Kipkemboi Arap Samoei Nandi/Kabiemit/22 is measuring approximately 11 acres (The suit land) purely as a trustee for and/on behalf of the Applicant and her children being Chepngetich the heirs of the late Tanui Alias Jepngetich Amina Tamurei Tanui (Deceased) the legal owner thereto. b) That a declaration do issue to the effect that the suit land is subject to an inter-generational trust in favour of the estate of the late Amina Chepngetich Tanui Alias Jepngetich Tamurei Tanui (Deceased). KAPSABET ELCLOS E006 OF 2026 RULING 2

page 2 of 9

c) That upon the grant of prayers 1 and 2 above, the Respondent's aforesaid trust over the suit parcel of land be accordingly terminated and in its place the suit land be registered in the name of the Applicant herein; Priscillah Jepkorir Hamina in trust for herself and her children being heirs of the late Amina Chepngetich Tanui Alias Jepngetich Tamurei Tanui (Deceased). d) That the title deed in the name of the Respondent; Kipkemboi Arap Samoei; be accordingly cancelled and the register amended by inserting the name of the Applicant herein in trust for herself and her children being heirs of the late Amina Chepngetich Tanui Alias Jepngetich Tamurei Tanui (Deceased). e) That the Respondent be condemned to pay costs of the originating summons. 3. The preliminary objection was heard by way of written submissions. 4. The Respondent filed his submissions dated 2 nd July 2026 in support of the preliminary objection and contended that the Applicant has instituted these proceedings in a representative capacity on behalf of the estate of the KAPSABET ELCLOS E006 OF 2026 RULING 3

page 3 of 9

deceased. However, the Applicant has not demonstrated that she possesses a Grant of Letters of Administration authorizing her to sue on behalf of the estate. It is trite law that only a duly appointed personal representative has the legal capacity to institute proceedings on behalf of a deceased person's estate. 5. To buttress the submissions, counsel for the respondent cited the case of Trouistik Union International & Another v Jane Mbeyu & Another [1993] eKLR where the Court of Appeal held that a party lacks locus standi to bring an action on behalf of a deceased person's estate before obtaining a grant of representation. So, counsel urged the court to allow the preliminary objection and strike out the entire suit with costs. 6. The Applicant represented by Isiaho Sawe and Company Advocates filed their submissions dated 10 th July 2026 framing issues inclusive of whether or not the suit herein is legally tenable is a substantive issue to be determined by this court upon hearing the parties on merit. That the said ground in the premises, does not constitute a pure point of law as envisaged by the holding in the celebrated KAPSABET ELCLOS E006 OF 2026 RULING 4

page 4 of 9

case of Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Limited =versus West End Distributors Limited (1969)EA 696 where Law J A stated thus in describing what constitutes a preliminary objection. "So far as I am aware, a Preliminary Objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded or which arises by clear implication out of the pleadings and which objection point may dispose the suit". 7. Counsel also submitted that it is not in dispute that the Applicant herein obtained a limited grant of letters of administration ad litem vide Kapsabet CM's court Ad Litem Cause Number E117/2025 whose purpose is stated as limited to prosecuting a claim over L.R No. Nandi/Kabiemit/22 on behalf of the estate of the late Amina Chepng'etich Tanui Alias Jepng'etich Tamurei Tanui (Dcd). That it is therefore, untrue for the Respondent to claim that the Applicant lacks the requisite legal capacity to institute the suit herein. 8. In the foregone, the foremost issue presenting itself for determination by this court is whether a limited grant ad KAPSABET ELCLOS E006 OF 2026 RULING 5

page 5 of 9

Litem is sufficient to vest in a litigant the legal capacity to institute, prosecute and/or defend a suit for the benefit of the estate of a deceased person as obtains in the instant suit. Subject to the said issue, what orders can issue by this court for the ends of justice? 9. Plainly, the issue of locus standi on the part of the applicant to institute this suit is in contest herein. In the case of Alfred Njau & others vs City Council of Nairobi (1982-88) 1 KAR 229, the Court of Appeal was of the considered view that; ’……locus standi is the right to appear or be heard in court or other proceedings……’ 10. Similarly, in Rajesh Pranivan Chudasama vs Sailesh Pranjivan Chudasama (2014) eKLR, the Court of Appeal remarked; ‘…….a litigant is clothed with locus standi upon obtaining a limited or full grant of letters of administration in cases of intestate succession……’ 11. It is important to note that the applicant’s further affidavit sworn on 9th June 2026 at paragraph 34 reveals a Limited grant of letters of Administration Ad Litem issued KAPSABET ELCLOS E006 OF 2026 RULING 6

page 6 of 9

to the applicant on 30th December 2025 in Kapsabet CMC Ad Litem No. E 117 of 2025 marked ‘B’ and annexed thereto. It is in line with the applicant’s capacity to instate suit as stated in paragraph 7 hereinabove. 12. The respondent contended that the applicant did not present a grant or Limited grant of letters of administration in respect of the estate of the deceased to enable her mount this suit. The applicant referred to the further affidavit and the annexed grant of letters of administration Ad Litem in answer to the contention. 13. The said Ad Litem grant of letters Administration is in consonant with section 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act 2015 (2011) on the powers and procedures of this court including that justice shall be administered without undue regard to technicalities of procedure. 14. More fundamentally, Article 159 (2) (d) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 stipulates; ‘justice shall be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities.’ 15. Furthermore, it is the considered view of this Honourable Court that the instant suit by character KAPSABET ELCLOS E006 OF 2026 RULING 7

page 7 of 9

inclusive of the orders sought on its face, is neither hopeless nor weak for dismissal at this stage. In the case of D.T Dobie & Company Ltd vs Joseph Mbaria Muchina & another (1982) eKLR, the Court of Appeal held; ‘No suit ought to be summarily dismissed unless it appears so hopeless that it plainly and obviously discloses no reasonable cause of action and is so weak as to be beyond redemption…….’ 16. To that end, I find the preliminary objection dated 15th May 2026 unsustainable and the same is hereby disallowed with costs in the cause. 17. The suit is set for mention on 8th October 2026. 18. It is so ordered Dated and Delivered at Kapsabet this 23rd day of September 2026. HON. G M A ONGONDO JUDGE In the presence of; KAPSABET ELCLOS E006 OF 2026 RULING 8

page 8 of 9

1. M/s L. Isiaho learned counsel for the applicant. 2. M/s Motari instructed by Muhatia Pala learned counsel for respondent. 3. Walter Kipkorir, Court Assistant KAPSABET ELCLOS E006 OF 2026 RULING 9

page 9 of 9