[2020] KEELC 2355 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 2355 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiffs/respondents lacked legal capacity to maintain the suit because the grant of letters of administration under which they filed the suit had been revoked. The court was satisfied from the evidence that the defendant/applicant was not in occupation of the suit land but a distinct...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 2355 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Daniel Kyalo Lua; Plaintiff: Wambua Lua; Defendant: Richard Manthi Muindi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Makueni
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 58 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Strike Out Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit
Outcome
suit struck out with costs to the defendant/applicant
Legal Topics
Striking Out of Suit, Legal Capacity of Administrators, Revocation of Grant, Ownership of Land, Abuse of Court Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Striking Out of Suit Legal Capacity of Administrators Revocation of Grant Ownership of Land Abuse of Court Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Kyalo Lua

Plaintiff

Wambua Lua

Plaintiff

Richard Manthi Muindi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Strike Out Application / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs/respondents had the legal capacity to institute and maintain the suit after revocation of the grant of letters of administration.
  2. 2 Whether the suit is frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of court process and should be struck out.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant/applicant is in occupation of the suit land or a distinct parcel.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs/respondents lacked legal capacity to maintain the suit because the grant of letters of administration under which they filed the suit had been revoked. The court was satisfied from the evidence that the defendant/applicant was not in occupation of the suit land but a distinct parcel, and that the plaintiffs/respondents had not challenged the ownership documents presented. The suit was deemed frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of court process, especially as the plaintiffs/respondents failed to file submissions or substantiate their claim. The court concluded that the suit could not be sustained and should be struck out with costs to the...

Court Disposition

suit struck out with costs to the defendant/applicant

Orders

  • The suit is hereby struck out.
  • Costs awarded to the defendant/applicant.