[2024] KEELC 4603 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 4603 (KLR)

The court found that the Defendants failed to provide sufficient reasons to demonstrate that the Environment and Land Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute. The Plaintiff, as the legal representative of the deceased registered proprietor, had established a basis for the court to proceed. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 4603 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Zachary Ochwari Gekara; Defendant: Henry Bosire Gekara; Defendant: Benjamin Mokua Gekara; Defendant: Joseph Okero Gekara; Defendant: Otao Gekara
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nyamira
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 97 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit for Want of Reasonable Cause of Action and Jurisdiction
Outcome
application dismissed; suit to proceed to full hearing
Judges
JM Kamau
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Environment and Land Court, Succession and Inheritance Disputes, Striking Out Suits, Abated Suits, Title and Ownership Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Jurisdiction of Environment and Land Court Succession and Inheritance Disputes Striking Out Suits Abated Suits Title and Ownership Disputes

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zachary Ochwari Gekara

Plaintiff

Henry Bosire Gekara

Defendant

Benjamin Mokua Gekara

Defendant

Joseph Okero Gekara

Defendant

Otao Gekara

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit for Want of Reasonable Cause of Action and Jurisdiction

  1. 1 Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit concerning L.R. No. Ekerubo Settlement Scheme/36 given the succession issues involved.
  2. 2 Whether the suit should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable cause of action due to abatement and succession proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendants failed to provide sufficient reasons to demonstrate that the Environment and Land Court lacked jurisdiction to hear and determine the dispute. The Plaintiff, as the legal representative of the deceased registered proprietor, had established a basis for the court to proceed. The court noted that although succession proceedings had been initiated, the succession court had declined jurisdiction, and no evidence was provided to show that the Environment and Land Court's jurisdiction was ousted. The application to strike out the suit was therefore dismissed, and the matter was ordered to proceed to full hearing.

Court Disposition

application dismissed; suit to proceed to full hearing

Orders

  • The application dated 12/3/2024 is dismissed.
  • Costs in the cause.