[2024] KEHC 7485 (KLR)
The court held that the preliminary objection did not raise pure points of law but instead required the court to ascertain facts, such as the validity of instructions to the advocates and the content of the mediation agreement. These are factual matters that must be tested by evidence, not by preliminary objection....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KEHC 7485 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Daniel Kirui Muthiora; Respondent: Joseph Kwinga Muthiora
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 1161 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed with costs
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Preliminary Objection, Mediation Agreements, Jurisdiction of Court, Legal Representative Authority
- 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
Daniel Kirui Muthiora
Applicant
Joseph Kwinga Muthiora
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the preliminary objection raises pure points of law as required by precedent.
- 2 Whether the application improperly seeks to challenge a mediation agreement.
- 3 Whether the law firm representing the applicant was properly instructed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the preliminary objection did not raise pure points of law but instead required the court to ascertain facts, such as the validity of instructions to the advocates and the content of the mediation agreement. These are factual matters that must be tested by evidence, not by preliminary objection. The court emphasized that a preliminary objection must be based solely on points of law, as established in the Mukisa Biscuits case. Since the objections required the court to look beyond the pleadings and ascertain facts, the preliminary objection was found to be unmeritorious and was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed with costs
Orders
- The preliminary objection is dismissed with costs.
- The application to be set down for hearing.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
In re Estate of John Muthiora Gathuna (Deceased) (Succession Cause 1161 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 7485 (KLR) (Family) (20 June 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KEHC 7485 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Family
Succession Cause 1161 of 2022
HK Chemitei, J
June 20, 2024
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE JOHN MUTHIORA GATHUNA (DECEASED)
Between
Daniel Kirui Muthiora
Applicant
and
Joseph Kwinga Muthiora
Respondent
Ruling
1. In his preliminary objection dated October 24, 2023 the objector’s grounds are that:(a)The application seeks to appeal against a mediation agreement.(b)It is bad in law as it flouts rule 9 of the civil procedure rules (2010 as amended) as the purported Applicant has not at any instance issued instructions to the firm of Moses N Siagi & Co Advocates to act on his behalf nor is the said Paul Mayaka Ogari a party to this succession proceeding.(c)That the application does not lie as the court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the application as currently framed on these grounds:(i)The estate of the deceased in succession cause no 1161 of 1990 (Misc. E120 of 2022) was not party to The Supreme Court Petition No 9 of HC No. 6 of 2012 (OS) and(ii)The enforcement of the judgement for Supreme court petition No. 9 is a matrimonial matter currently being heard by the right forum under HC No. 6 of 2012(O.S).
2. The court directed the parties to file their written submissions which they have done and the court has perused the same exhaustively.
3. The Applicant relied on the case of Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing CoLtdv.West End DistributorsLtd (1969) E A 696 as well as order 9 rule 1 of the CivilProcedure Rules.
4. He further submitted that the order having emanated from mediation proceedings could not be challenged in the manner the Applicant was doing.
5. He also submitted while relying on the case of Owners Of The Motor Vessel v Caltex Oil Limited (1989) that this court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application.
6. The respondent in his submissions opposed the preliminary objection arguing among others that the law firm of Siagi & co was well instructed even before the filing of the application
7. He further submitted that this court was seized of jurisdiction specially to deal with issues surrounding Plot number 29. Conversely he has argued that the Applicant has subjected himself to this court as regards plot number 29.
8. He prayed for the preliminary objection to be dismissed.
9. I have perused the said objections carefully and taking cue from the Mukisa Biscuits case above I doubt whether it passes the muster.
10. The court stated as follows regarding what is a preliminary point of law.“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 in the exercise of judicial discretion.”(underlining mine)
11. To the extent that this court will look elsewhere so as to support the objection, then the same does not qualify. Looking for instance at the first ground, all that the applicant is asking the court to do is to peruse the mediation agreement and come to a conclusion in the manner he wants the court to follow.
12. This is a factual issue. The same ought to be argued in the application so that the parties can test the veracity or otherwise by way of affidavit evidence.
13. The same goes to the second ground. Whether the firm of Moses Siagi was instructed by the applicant or one Paul Mayaka Ogari is a factual issue. It ought to be tested by way of evidence.
14. The same goes to ground 3. The cases cited therein on their own cannot help the court come to a conclusion that the preliminary objection is meritorious. It will require the court to search for them, read, understand and come up with a conclusion on whether or not it affects the proceedings herein.
15. For the above reasons I think I have stated much to show that the preliminary objection is unmeritorious and it is hereby dismissed with costs.
16. Let the application be set down for hearing.
DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI VIA VIDEO LINK THIS 20TH DAY OF JUNE 2024. H K CHEMITEIJUDGE