[2023] KEELC 20203 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 20203 (KLR)

The Environment and Land Court is bound by the Court of Appeal’s interpretation that disputes relating to the exercise of a chargee’s statutory power of sale, where title to land is not in dispute, do not fall within its jurisdiction. The court is required to follow this precedent under the doctrine of stare...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 20203 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Grace Wangui Gichuhi; Plaintiff: Wilson Gichuhi Kimani; Defendant: Progressive Credit; Defendant: Rising Sun Auctioneers
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Thika
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case E030 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Jurisdictional Objection
Outcome
suit struck out for want of jurisdiction
Judges
BM Eboso
Legal Topics
Statutory Power of Sale, Jurisdiction of Environment and Land Court, Mortgage Disputes, Injunctive Relief
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Statutory Power of Sale Jurisdiction of Environment and Land Court Mortgage Disputes Injunctive Relief

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Grace Wangui Gichuhi

Plaintiff

Wilson Gichuhi Kimani

Plaintiff

Progressive Credit

Defendant

Rising Sun Auctioneers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Jurisdictional Objection

  1. 1 Does the Environment and Land Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes relating to the exercise of a chargee's statutory power of sale where title is not in dispute?
  2. 2 Should the suit be struck out for want of jurisdiction?

Ratio Decidendi

The Environment and Land Court is bound by the Court of Appeal’s interpretation that disputes relating to the exercise of a chargee’s statutory power of sale, where title to land is not in dispute, do not fall within its jurisdiction. The court is required to follow this precedent under the doctrine of stare decisis. As such, the court must decline jurisdiction and strike out the suit. The plaintiffs’ reliance on constitutional and statutory provisions was insufficient to override the binding appellate authority. Consequently, the suit was struck out for want of jurisdiction, and costs awarded to the defendants.

Court Disposition

suit struck out for want of jurisdiction

Orders

  • The suit is struck out for want of jurisdiction.
  • The plaintiffs shall bear the costs of the suit.