[2018] KEELC 2600 (KLR)
The Environment and Land Court lacks jurisdiction to determine matters concerning the annulment of a grant issued in a succession cause, as such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the succession court. The originating summons seeks reliefs that are succession-related, specifically the annulment of a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 2600 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Susan Kanario Kabiri; Defendant: Wilson Mburugu Rubara; Defendant: Maritha Matuu Muchena; Applicant: Julius Mwikumi Rubara; Applicant: Francis Mbaabu Rubara
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 141 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Jurisdiction
- Outcome
- preliminary objection upheld; matter referred to High Court for determination
- Legal Topics
- Jurisdiction of Court, Annulment of Grant, Succession Disputes, Transfer of Suit
- 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
Susan Kanario Kabiri
Plaintiff
Wilson Mburugu Rubara
Defendant
Maritha Matuu Muchena
Defendant
Julius Mwikumi Rubara
Applicant
Francis Mbaabu Rubara
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection Regarding Jurisdiction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to determine matters relating to the annulment of a grant issued in a succession cause.
- 2 Whether the suit should be dismissed or transferred to the appropriate court.
Ratio Decidendi
The Environment and Land Court lacks jurisdiction to determine matters concerning the annulment of a grant issued in a succession cause, as such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the succession court. The originating summons seeks reliefs that are succession-related, specifically the annulment of a grant, which is not within the purview of the Environment and Land Court as defined by Article 162(2) of the Constitution and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act. Although the matter was referred to this court by a High Court Judge, there is no evidence of such an order on record. In the interest of justice and pursuant to Article 159(2)(b) of the Constitution, the...
Court Disposition
preliminary objection upheld; matter referred to High Court for determination
Orders
- The preliminary objection is upheld.
- The matter is referred to the High Court for determination.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ELC CASE NO. 141 OF 2016
IN THE MATTER OF ESTATE OF KABIRI MURITHI (DECEASED)
SUSAN KANARIO KABIRI......................................... PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
WILSON MBURUGU RUBARA........................1ST DEFENDANT
MARITHA MATUU MUCHENA......................2ND DEFENDANT
JULIUS MWIKUMI RUBARA............................1ST APPLICANT
FRANCIS MBAABU RUBARA..........................2ND APPLICANT
RULING
1. This ruling is in respect of the preliminary objection dated 13. 11. 2017 and filed the same day whereby, the 2nd defendant avers that “This court has no jurisdiction to try this suit as this is not a successions court”. 1st respondents reply to the preliminary objection is that “ though this is not a court vested with jurisdiction to deal with succession matters, it was Justice Gikonyo who directed that the matter be heard by this honourable court, since the matters touched on issues of trust. In any case the same can be transferred back to the court which handled it from the onset, to ensure that justice is served to all the litigants herein”.
2. The court gave directions for the preliminary objections to be canvassed by way of written submissions. This court has carefully considered the notice of preliminary objection, the pleadings, the rival submissions and I have come to the following determinations;
3. That in terms of the claims in the originating summons (filed on 24. 8.2016), particularly paragraph 8 and 9 thereof, the plaintiff is seeking to have the grant issued in succession cause no. 370/2003 Meru and 227/1994 Meru High court annulled.
4. The jurisdiction of this court is provided for under article 162 (2) of the constitution where it is provided that Parliament shall establish courts with the status of the High Court to hear and determine disputes relating to— environment and the use and occupation of, and title to, land.
5. This jurisdiction is further stipulated under section 13 of the environment and land court Act where in subsection (1), it is provided that; “The Court shall have original and appellate jurisdiction to hear and determine all disputes in accordance with Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution and with the provisions of this Act or any other law applicable in Kenya relating to environment and land”.Subsection (2) provides that the in exercise of its jurisdiction, the court will have powers to hear and determine the following;
“disputes-
(a) relating to environmental planning and protection, climate issues, land use planning, title, tenure, boundaries, rates, rents, valuations, mining, minerals and other natural resources;
(b) Relating to compulsory acquisition of land;
(c) relating to land administration and management;
(d) relating to public, private and community land and contracts, choses in action or other instruments granting any enforceable interests in land; and
(e) Any other dispute relating to environment and land.”
6. It is quite clear that this court has no jurisdiction to determine the issues raised in the originating summons, as the same appertains to annulment of a grant.
7. The 1st defendant has stated that it is a high court Judge who referred the matter here and hence instead of dismissing the suit, the file should be re-transferred to the appropriate court to ensure that justice is served. However, I have not been told when the said orders were made, and i see no such orders in this file.
8. Nevertheless and in the interest of justice, and taking into account the provisions of article 159 (2) (b) of the Constitution, I do find that the Preliminary Objection is merited, but I hereby refer the matter to the High court for determination. No orders as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 11TH DAY OF JULY, 2018 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
Court Assistant:Janet/Galgalo
Muchomba for 1st defendant
Miss Wambugu holding brief for E.G Mwangi for plaintiff
Mutegi for plaintiff
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE