https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3923

Mwaduna v Mwaduna & 6 others (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E005 of 2026) [2026] KEELC 3923 (KLR) (17 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3923 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Malindi Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E005 of 2026 FM Njoroge, J June 17, 2026 Between Beatrice Mwambire Mwaduna Plaintiff and Stephen Mwayele Mwaduna & 6 others & 6 others & 6 others Defendant Ruling 1.The defendants seek that the plaintiff’s suit be struck out in limine with costs to them for the reason that the plaintiff no longer has locus standi, the plaintiff’s grant of letters of administration dated 13/11/2012 vide which she had administered the estate of her late husband having been revoked on 16th April 2026 by the High Court ion Succession Cause No Malindi HCFP&A NO 91 of 2012. It was vide that Grant that the plaintiff had the suit land in the present case transferred to herself. 2.It has not been denied that the grant was revoked for reason of concealment of material facts. The only response in this regard was that the plaintiff has lodged an application for setting aside the evocation of the grant. However, the revocation remains in place, for now. 3.It is now as though there had never been any appointed administrator of the deceased’s estate. I agree with the defendants that revocation of the grant has sent the parties back to the drawing board in respect of matters of seeking who is to be administrator. Consequently, the transfer of the suit land to the plaintiff in the present suit which was done using the now revoked grant has been rendered to be of no effect, and she can not be deemed as the administrator. She therefore lacks locus standi to continue to prosecute the present suit, and it is as though she never had locus standi ab initio. 4.It has also been pointed out that the present proceedings were filed as a Miscellaneous Application and not as a suit by way of Plaint. I have perused the record and found that the presence of a copy of the plaint misled this court into believing that it had been filed. Filing was however only actualized in respect of a Miscellaneous application and a fee of Kshs 2000/= was paid, but the plaint was attached as though filed. The receipt filed in the record is evidence of this fact. These facts were not controverted by the plaintiff. It is therefore clear that there is no substantive suit filed by the litigant before me and in fact I cannot henceforth in the present ruling refer to her as a plaintiff. No suit can be commenced by way of a miscellaneous application. A substantive suit can only be commenced by way of a plaint, Originating Summons, Judicial Review or Petition. Interim orders made under Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules are predicated on the existence of a substantive suit. Since no substantive suit was filed, the grant of interim orders under the impression that the plaint was properly filed was therefore not deserved. 5.The upshot of the foregoing is that the applicant lacks locus standi and there is no substantive suit upon which the interim orders can be premised and the interim orders made on 21/1/2026 and confirmed on 4/2/2026 are hereby vacated, and these proceedings are struck out entirely. However, this being a family matter, I order that each party shall bear its own costs. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI ON THIS 17TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.MWANGI NJOROGEJUDGE, ELC, MALINDI.