[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
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the preliminary objection raises a pure point of law capable of disposing of the suit.
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
31 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MILIMANI
ELC CASE NO. E159 OF 2020
HYUNG GYUN KIM...........................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KIAMBU DANDORA FARMERS CO.LTD............................1ST DEFENDANT
NAIROBI METROPOLITAN SERVICES..............................2ND DEFEDNANT
NATIONAL POLICE SERVICE...............................................3RD DEFENDANT
NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION...........................................4TH DEFENDANT
CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR, NAIROBI...................................5TH DEFENDANT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.....................................................6TH DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The Plaintiff filed this suit against the Defendants seeking among other reliefs injunctive orders. The Plaintiff contemporaneously filed a Notice of Motion in which he sought injunctive orders restraining the Defendants from interfering with two properties namely LR No. 209/9457 and LR No.209/9460. Before the Applicant’s application could be heard, the 1st Defendant raised a preliminary objection against the application and the entire suit on grounds that there existed a similar suit between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant that is ELC 484 of 2015.
2. The Plaintiff opposed the preliminary objection arguing that the same does not raise a pure point of law and that the suit which is the subject of ELC 484 of 2015 is LR No. 11379/3 whereas the present suit relates to LR No. 209/9460 and LR No. 209/9457.
3. The parties were directed to file written submissions in respect of the preliminary objection. The 1st Defendant filed submissions dated 18th February 2021. The Plaintiff filed submissions dated 14th April 2021. I have gone through the submissions by the parties herein and the only issue for determination is whether the 1st Defendant has raised a pure point of law which if argued will dispose of the entire suit.
4. The preliminary objection appears to be predicated upon section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act which provides as follows: -
“No court shall proceed with the trial of any suit or proceeding in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit or proceeding between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, where such suit or proceeding is pending in the same or any other court having jurisdiction in Kenya to grant the relief claimed”.
5. The definition of a preliminary objection was well set out in the case of Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co.Ltd Vs West End Distributors ( 1969) EA 969 where the court held that a preliminary objection is in the nature of what used to be a demurrer . It raises a pure point of law which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if\ any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion.
6. The marginal notes under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act refer to stay of suit. In the instant case, the 1st Defendant has not placed any material before the court to show that the suit in ELC 484 of 2015 relates to the same parties over same subject matter. Whereas this suit relates to LR No.209/9457 and LR No.209/9460, the Plaintiff has indicated that the subject matter in ELC 484 of 2015 is LR No. 11379 /3. This clearly calls for ascertainment of facts and therefore this preliminary objection does not raise a pure point of law which will dispose of this suit. I therefore find no merit in the preliminary objection which is hereby dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI ON THIS 20TH DAY OF MAY 2021.
E. O. OBAGA
JUDGE
In the Virtual presence of:-
Mr Macharia for Mr Omari for Plaintiff
M/s Ngugi for 1st Defendant
M/s Fatuma for 2nd, 3rd 5th and 6th Defendants
Court Assistant: Okumu
E. O. OBAGA
JUDGE