[2018] KEELRC 1659 (KLR)

[2018] KEELRC 1659 (KLR)

The court held that the issues raised by the defendant regarding the plaintiff's title to the suit property and the alleged conflict of interest by the plaintiff's advocates are not proper preliminary objections. The question of title is a factual matter that requires evidence and cannot be determined at the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELRC 1659 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Mwihike Farmers Company Limited; Defendant: Francis Kaigua Karitu
Court
Employment and Labour Relations Court
Court Station
Employment and Labour Relations Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 1172 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
Judges
MM Gitumbi, BM Eboso
Legal Topics
Preliminary Objection, Adverse Possession, Title to Land, Advocate Conflict of Interest
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Preliminary Objection Adverse Possession Title to Land Advocate Conflict of Interest

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

Mwihike Farmers Company Limited

Plaintiff

Francis Kaigua Karitu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's suit is fatally defective and should be dismissed at the preliminary stage.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's advocates should be disqualified for alleged conflict of interest due to their role in the sale agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the issues raised by the defendant are proper points of law for determination as preliminary objections.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the issues raised by the defendant regarding the plaintiff's title to the suit property and the alleged conflict of interest by the plaintiff's advocates are not proper preliminary objections. The question of title is a factual matter that requires evidence and cannot be determined at the preliminary stage. Similarly, the issue of legal representation does not constitute a point of law that could dispose of the suit. The court emphasized that only pure points of law, not requiring factual ascertainment, can be raised as preliminary objections. Consequently, the notice of preliminary objection was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the plaintiff

Orders

  • The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 4th November 2016 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the plaintiff.