[2018] KEELC 2707 (KLR)
The court found that although the plaintiff had not exhibited letters of administration to demonstrate locus standi as the legal representative of the deceased's estate, Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution requires that justice be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities. The court was guided...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 2707 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Rashid Masudi Nasoro; Respondent: Fatuma R. Sebe; Respondent: Salim Juma Mwabasho; Respondent: The Diani Oasis Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 193 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Application to Strike Out Suit
- Outcome
- Application and preliminary objection dismissed; suit to proceed to hearing on merits.
- Judges
- LC Komingoi
- Legal Topics
- Locus Standi, Striking Out Suit, Letters of Administration, Procedural Technicalities
- 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
Rashid Masudi Nasoro
Applicant
Fatuma R. Sebe
Respondent
Salim Juma Mwabasho
Respondent
The Diani Oasis Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Application to Strike Out Suit
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit should be struck out for want of locus standi due to the plaintiff's failure to exhibit letters of administration.
- 2 Whether the 1st and 2nd defendants should be struck out from the proceedings.
- 3 Whether the preliminary objection by the 3rd defendant has merit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the plaintiff had not exhibited letters of administration to demonstrate locus standi as the legal representative of the deceased's estate, Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution requires that justice be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities. The court was guided by this constitutional provision and determined that the plaintiff should be given an opportunity to ventilate his claim to conclusion. The court considered it fair and just to allow the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims so that the dispute could be resolved on its merits. Consequently, the court dismissed both the application to strike out the...
Court Disposition
Application and preliminary objection dismissed; suit to proceed to hearing on merits.
Orders
- The application dated 30th November, 2017 is dismissed.
- The preliminary objection dated 12th December, 2017 is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
42 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MOMBASA
SUIT NO 193 OF 2017
RASHID MASUDI NASORO.............................APPLICANT
VERSUS
FATUMA R. SEBE....................................1ST RESPONDENT
SALIM JUMA MWABASHO.................2ND RESPONDENT
THE DIANI OASIS LIMITED...............3RD RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This is the Notice of Motion dated 30th November, 2017. It is brought under Section 1A, 3A, 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 1 Rule 2, Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules and all enabling provisions of the law.
2. It seeks orders;
a. That the Honourable Court be pleased to strike out the names of the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants from these proceedings.
b. That the Honourable Court be pleased to strike out the entire suit herein with costs.
3. The grounds are on the face of the application and are listed as in paragraph 1-9. I do not need to reproduce them here.
4. The application is supported by the affidavit of Salim Juma Mwabasho, the 2nd Defendant/Applicant herein sworn on the 30th November, 2017.
5. The application is opposed. There is a replying affidavit sworn by Rashid Masudi Nasoro, the Plaintiff/Respondent sworn on the 16th January, 2018.
6. The 3rd Defendant has also raised a preliminary objection dated 12th December, 2017. The grounds of the preliminary objection are that the Plaintiff has not exhibited letters of administration for the estate of the said Masudi Nasoro Ganzori and as such the suit ought to be struck out with costs.
7. It was directed by the court that the same be canvassed together with the 1st and 2nd Defendants notice of motion.
8. It is the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Applicants case that the Plaintiffs claim is that he and his siblings inherited the land from their late father. That he has not exhibited any letters of administration to show that he is the administrator of the estate of his late father.
9. It is the 3rd Defendant’s case that this suit is fatally defective as the Plaintiff has not exhibited letters of administration that the Plaintiff lacks Locus standi to institute this suit. They also support the 1st and 2nd Defendant’s application.
10. I have considered the Notice of Motion and the supporting affidavit. I have also considered the preliminary objection, the replying affidavit and the oral submissions of counsels. The issue for determination is whether the suit herein ought to be struck out.
11. I have gone through the pliant. It is not in doubt that the Plaintiff has not exhibited letters of administration to show that he is the legal representative of the estate of the late Masudi Nasoro Ganzori, who was his father.
12. He has annexed as, “RM2 A” the judgement from Land Disputes Tribunal Msambweni. The judgment is dated 25th October, 2008. The same was adopted as judgement of the court by Honourable A. Obura, Principal Magistrate, Kwale Law Courts.
13. He has also annexed as “RMN 4” which is a letter from the then Provincial Commissioner confirming that the 1st and 2nd Defendants had filed an appeal against the said findings of 25th October, 2008. The said appeal was later withdrawn. I essence the findings of the Land Disputes Tribunal Msambweni and adopted as judgement of the court in Kwale has never been appealed against and or reviewed.
14. Article 159(2) (d) states;
a. “………
b. ………
c. ………
d. Justice shall be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities;
e. ………”
I am guided by the above provision in finding that the Plaintiff ought to be given an opportunity to ventilate his claim to conclusion.
15. I find it fair and just to give the parties an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective claims so that the dispute can be solved once and for all.
16. I have considered the circumstances of this case and find that the 1st and 2nd Defendants application dated 30th November, 2017 and the preliminary objection lack merit and they are dismissed.
The Plaintiff is encouraged to ensure that this matter is heard expeditiously to avoid causing of injustice or hardship to any party.
The costs do abide the outcome of the main suit.
It is ordered.
Dated, Signed and Delivered atMombasa on the17th dayofApril 2018.
__________________
L. KOMINGOI
JUDGE
17/4/2018.