[2017] KEELC 3122 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 3122 (KLR)

The court held that the issues raised in the preliminary objection, specifically regarding the validity of the consent from the Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer and the jurisdiction of the initial court, are not pure points of law. These issues require the court to consider evidence and cannot be determined...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 3122 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Peter Mugo; Plaintiff: Catherine Igoki Mugo; Defendant: Stephen Njagi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Chuka
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 21 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Land Adjudication, Jurisdiction of Courts, Preliminary Objection, Consent Requirement
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Land Adjudication Jurisdiction of Courts Preliminary Objection Consent Requirement

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Mugo

Plaintiff

Catherine Igoki Mugo

Plaintiff

Stephen Njagi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the suit was instituted without a valid consent of the Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer contrary to statutory requirements.
  2. 2 Whether the initial court lacked jurisdiction and if transfer to the current court cures the defect.
  3. 3 Whether the issues raised in the preliminary objection are pure points of law suitable for determination without evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the issues raised in the preliminary objection, specifically regarding the validity of the consent from the Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer and the jurisdiction of the initial court, are not pure points of law. These issues require the court to consider evidence and cannot be determined solely on the basis of legal arguments. Consequently, the preliminary objection does not meet the threshold established in Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Ltd for what constitutes a proper preliminary objection. The objection was therefore dismissed, and the matter was directed to proceed to pre-trial conferencing and directions.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed

Orders

  • The preliminary objection dated 12th July, 2016 is dismissed.
  • Costs shall be in the cause.