[2022] KEELC 3229 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 3229 (KLR)

The court found that the preliminary objection raised by the 2nd and 4th defendants was not based on pure points of law but rather involved arguments and disputed facts regarding the membership and authority of the persons instituting the suit. The court held that even if the three officials were not acting on...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 3229 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: People Like Us CBO; Defendant: Eric Mureithi Kimaru; Defendant: Physical Planner, Isiolo County; Defendant: Land Registrar, Isiolo County; Defendant: County Government of Isiolo; Defendant: Attorney General
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Isiolo
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 016 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed
Judges
PM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Preliminary Objection, Representative Suits, Order 1 Rule 13, Order 1 Rule 8, Striking Out Suits, Right to Be Heard
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Preliminary Objection Representative Suits Order 1 Rule 13 Order 1 Rule 8 Striking Out Suits Right to Be Heard

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

People Like Us CBO

Plaintiff

Eric Mureithi Kimaru

Defendant

Physical Planner, Isiolo County

Defendant

Land Registrar, Isiolo County

Defendant

County Government of Isiolo

Defendant

Attorney General

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the suit offends the mandatory provisions of Order 1 Rule 13 and Order 1 Rule 8(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the suit should be struck out at the preliminary stage for lack of compliance with procedural requirements.
  3. 3 Whether the officials of the plaintiff CBO have the right to prosecute the suit on their own behalf.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the preliminary objection raised by the 2nd and 4th defendants was not based on pure points of law but rather involved arguments and disputed facts regarding the membership and authority of the persons instituting the suit. The court held that even if the three officials were not acting on behalf of the entire plaintiff organization, they retained the right to prosecute the suit on their own behalf. Striking out the suit at this stage would unjustly deny them access to justice. The issues raised in the preliminary objection could be properly addressed during the substantive hearing of the main suit, not at the preliminary stage. Accordingly, the preliminary objection...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed

Orders

  • The notice of preliminary objection is hereby dismissed.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.