[2021] KEELRC 1269 (KLR)

[2021] KEELRC 1269 (KLR)

The court found that the preliminary objection did not raise a pure point of law because it required ascertainment of facts regarding whether the subject matter in the present suit (LR No. 209/9457 and LR No. 209/9460) was the same as that in ELC 484 of 2015 (LR No. 11379/3). Since the Plaintiff had demonstrated...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEELRC 1269 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Hyung Gyun Kim; Defendant: Kiambu Dandora Farmers Co. Ltd; Defendant: Nairobi Metropolitan Services; Defendant: National Police Service; Defendant: National Land Commission; Defendant: Chief Land Registrar, Nairobi; Defendant: The Attorney General
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case E159 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
Judges
EO Obaga
Legal Topics
Preliminary Objection, Res Subjudice, Injunctive Relief, Land Title Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Preliminary Objection Res Subjudice Injunctive Relief Land Title 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hyung Gyun Kim

Plaintiff

Kiambu Dandora Farmers Co. Ltd

Defendant

Nairobi Metropolitan Services

Defendant

National Police Service

Defendant

National Land Commission

Defendant

Chief Land Registrar, Nairobi

Defendant

The Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the preliminary objection raises a pure point of law capable of disposing of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether the subject matter in the present suit is the same as that in ELC 484 of 2015, thus attracting the doctrine of res sub judice under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the preliminary objection did not raise a pure point of law because it required ascertainment of facts regarding whether the subject matter in the present suit (LR No. 209/9457 and LR No. 209/9460) was the same as that in ELC 484 of 2015 (LR No. 11379/3). Since the Plaintiff had demonstrated that the properties in dispute were different, the objection could not be determined without delving into factual matters, which is not permissible at the preliminary objection stage. Therefore, the preliminary objection was dismissed as it lacked merit.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the plaintiff

Orders

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