[2025] KEHC 2284 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 2284 (KLR)

The court held that the preliminary objection did not raise a pure point of law as it required examination of the pleadings to determine the nature of the dispute. Upon review, the court found that the suit was for a refund of Kshs. 82,811,015 arising from a failed contract for the purchase of land, and not for the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 2284 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Anthony Maina Henia; Plaintiff: Cigma Business Centre Limited; Plaintiff: Horizon Drilling Company Limited; Plaintiff: James Kabugi Kimani; Plaintiff: Jacinta Wanjiru Macharia; Defendant: Southshores Logistics Limited; Defendant: Costin & Webster Law
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyandarua
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 2 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed
Judges
KW Kiarie
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of Court, Preliminary Objection, Refund of Purchase Price, Land Sale Contract
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Jurisdiction of Court Preliminary Objection Refund of Purchase Price Land Sale Contract

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Maina Henia

Plaintiff

Cigma Business Centre Limited

Plaintiff

Horizon Drilling Company Limited

Plaintiff

James Kabugi Kimani

Plaintiff

Jacinta Wanjiru Macharia

Plaintiff

Southshores Logistics Limited

Defendant

Costin & Webster Law

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the High Court (Civil Division) has jurisdiction to hear a dispute arising from a failed contract for the purchase of land.
  2. 2 Whether the preliminary objection raises pure points of law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the preliminary objection did not raise a pure point of law as it required examination of the pleadings to determine the nature of the dispute. Upon review, the court found that the suit was for a refund of Kshs. 82,811,015 arising from a failed contract for the purchase of land, and not for the determination of title, occupation, or use of land. Therefore, the High Court Civil Division retained jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. The preliminary objection was dismissed as it was not meritorious and did not meet the threshold established in Mukisa Biscuits for a valid preliminary objection.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs.