https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/10233

In re Estate of Ali alias Nooru Nuru Ali (Deceased) (Succession Cause 384 of 2002) [2026] KEHC 10233 (KLR) (14 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 10233 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Meru Succession Cause 384 of 2002 SM Githinji, J July 14, 2026 Between Salima Nuru 1st Petitioner Idris Nuru 2nd Petitioner and Marimu Hamisi 1st Applicant Sofia Faith Nuru 2nd Applicant and Rocky Ranch Limited Interested Party Ruling 1.For determination is the Notice of Motion dated 31/1/2025 under Article 159 of the Constitution, Sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 1 Rule 10, Order 12 Rule 7, Order 2 Rule 15 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, seeking that:1.Spent2.This Honourable Court be pleased to dismiss the summons dated 5th November 2024 for want of jurisdiction.3.In the alternative this Honourable Court be pleased to dismiss the summons dated 5th November 2024 for being an abuse of Court process.4.Costs of this motion be provided for. 2.The application is premised on the grounds that the Interested Party, Rocky Ranch Limited, is the current owner of L.R No. Abogeta/U-Kithangari/859, having purchased it validly through a sale agreement dated 26/3/2019. Vide the Ruling dated 21/11/2022, this Court held that it lacked the requisite jurisdiction to entertain an issue of title and occupation, as the cause of action squarely lies with the Environment and Land Court. The application is thus res judicata, and the suit is a total abuse of the court process, which ought to be dismissed. 3.The 2nd Applicant swore a Replying Affidavit on 26/3/2025 in opposition to the application. She averred that the Interested Party is a stranger to this estate, only that he wrongly and illegally purchased land parcel No. Abogeta/U-Kithangari/859, without following due procedure. She is advised that the ruling of 21/11/2022 cannot be used to stop them from seeking cancellation of the title deed, as it is the only remedy available to them and the estate of the deceased. The Interested Party has approached the Court with unclean hands as he intends to benefit from his own fraudulent deed. 4.Milton Mugambi Imanyara, an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya and one of the directors of the Interested Party, swore a Supplementary Affidavit on 3/6/2025 in support of the application. 5.The application was canvassed by way of written submissions, which were duly filed by Counsel. Disposition 6.In order to gauge whether the Court has jurisdiction, it is pertinent to set out in verbatim the prayers sought in the application dated 5/11/2024. In that application, Marimu Hamisi and Sofia Faith Nuru (the Applicants herein) seek that:“1.This Honourable Court be pleased to place an order of inhibition over land parcel no. 3. Abogeta/U-Kithangari/859. 2. The Land Registrar Nkubu Land Registry be ordered to supply the land register for of land parcel no. Abogeta/U-Kithangari/859. 3. This Honourable Court be pleased to remove Salima Nuru and Idris Nuru as administrators. 4. This Honourable court be pleased to cancel and revoke the registration of land parcel no. Abogeta/U-Kithangari/859 in the names of Idris Nuru, Salima Nuru, Abdi Zainabu Mwari and Nuru Murithi Hassan and/or any other person or 3rd party and the same revert to the names of the deceased.” 7.A brief synopsis of this matter is that the previous subdivisions of L.R No. Abogeta/U-Kathangari/859 were cancelled, and the land reverted to the deceased herein. Consequently, a certificate of confirmation of grant was issued on 16/10/2018, and the estate was subsequently distributed. Pursuant to that confirmation, the Petitioners lawfully sold the entire estate to the Interested Party, which sale is now being challenged by the Applicants in their application dated 5/11/2024. 8.The cancellation of the resultant subdivisions of L.R No. Abogeta/U-Kathangari/859 precipitated the filing of the application dated 1/4/2019 for setting aside the said orders, and this court (T.W Cherere J) vide its Ruling dated 21/11/2022 unequivocally dismissed that application for want of jurisdiction. 9.In the locus classicus case of Owners of Motor Vessel “Lillian S” v Caltex Oil Kenya Ltd [1989] eKLR, the Court of Appeal stated that: “Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a Court has no power to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction, there would be no basis for a continuation of proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law down tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion that it is without jurisdiction.” 10.I find that the prayers sought in the application dated 5/11/2024 fall exclusively within the jurisdictional ambit of the Environment and Land Court. 11.It therefore follows that the application dated 5/11/2024 is not only res judicata, but also the epitome of the abuse of the Court process. 12.Flowing from the foregoing, the Interested Party’s application dated 3/1/2025 is merited and it is hereby allowed in the following terms:1.The application dated 5/11/2024 is hereby struck out for want of jurisdiction with costs to the Interested Party (Applicant). DATED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 14TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.S.M. GITHINJI –JUDGE14/7/2026In the presence of:-Mr. Mutuma for the RespondentMr. Mutegi for the Applicant