[2025] KEHC 7495 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 7495 (KLR)

The court found that the 1st plaintiff did not have written authority from the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs to act on their behalf, as required by Order 1 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The absence of such authority is a fatal defect in a representative suit and renders the suit incompetent. The court held that a mere statement in an affidavit is insufficient; the authority must be in writing and filed. Consequently, the suit was struck out as a non-starter, with half costs awarded to the defendants.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 7495 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Eunice Saoina Marima; Plaintiff: Piaro Ole Norpoor; Plaintiff: Mike Ole Marima; Defendant: Purko Development Trust; Defendant: Chairman, Purko Development Trust; Defendant: Seleila Ole Mwanik; Defendant: The Governor, Narok County; Defendant: Narok North Member Of Parliame
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Narok
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
27 May 2025
Case Number
Civil Case E005 of 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
suit struck out for want of written authority; half costs to defendants
Judges
CM Kariuki
Legal Topics
Preliminary Objection, Representative Suits, Verifying Affidavit, Authority to Plead
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Preliminary Objection Representative Suits Verifying Affidavit Authority to Plead

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eunice Saoina Marima

Plaintiff

Piaro Ole Norpoor

Plaintiff

Mike Ole Marima

Plaintiff

Purko Development Trust

Defendant

Chairman, Purko Development Trust

Defendant

Seleila Ole Mwanik

Defendant

The Governor, Narok County

Defendant

Narok North Member Of Parliame

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the suit is incompetent for lack of written authority by the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs for the 1st plaintiff to act on their behalf.
  2. 2 Whether the suit discloses a reasonable cause of action and triable issues.
  3. 3 Whether procedural defects in the manner of filing can be cured or are fatal to the suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the 1st plaintiff did not have written authority from the 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs to act on their behalf, as required by Order 1 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The absence of such authority is a fatal defect in a representative suit and renders the suit incompetent. The court held that a mere statement in an affidavit is insufficient; the authority must be in writing and filed. Consequently, the suit was struck out as a non-starter, with half costs awarded to the defendants.

Court Disposition

suit struck out for want of written authority; half costs to defendants

Orders

  • The instant suit is hereby struck out with half costs to the defendants.
  • Orders accordingly.