[2023] KEHC 21735 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiffs' suit primarily concerns the directorship and management of the 2nd plaintiff company, and not the use or occupation of land. The defendants did not raise any counterclaim relating to land. Therefore, the High Court retains jurisdiction over the matter, and section 13 of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEHC 21735 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mark Lloyd Stephenson; Plaintiff: Universal Resources International Ltd; Defendant: Michael G. Lynch; Defendant: Henry M. Mwalugha; Defendant: Gilbert Mzee
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 40 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed
- Judges
- AN Ongeri
- Legal Topics
- Preliminary Objection, Jurisdiction, Company Directorship Disputes, Injunctive Relief
- 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
Mark Lloyd Stephenson
Plaintiff
Universal Resources International Ltd
Plaintiff
Michael G. Lynch
Defendant
Henry M. Mwalugha
Defendant
Gilbert Mzee
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit is incompetent, prejudicial, and an abuse of the court process.
- 2 Whether the High Court lacks jurisdiction under section 13 of the Environment and Land Act.
- 3 Whether the suit is scandalous, frivolous, or vexatious and should be struck out.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiffs' suit primarily concerns the directorship and management of the 2nd plaintiff company, and not the use or occupation of land. The defendants did not raise any counterclaim relating to land. Therefore, the High Court retains jurisdiction over the matter, and section 13 of the Environment and Land Act does not oust its jurisdiction in this context. The preliminary objection did not raise pure points of law sufficient to warrant striking out the suit. Consequently, the preliminary objection was dismissed, and the parties were directed to comply with pre-trial procedures under Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed
Orders
- The preliminary objection dated April 19, 2023 is dismissed.
- Parties to comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules within 30 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
Stephenson & another v Lynch & 2 others (Civil Case 40 of 2019) [2023] KEHC 21735 (KLR) (Civ) (24 August 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEHC 21735 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Civil
Civil Case 40 of 2019
AN Ongeri, J
August 24, 2023
Between
Mark Lloyd Stephenson
1st Plaintiff
Universal Resources International Ltd
2nd Plaintiff
and
Michael G. Lynch
1st Defendant
Henry M. Mwalugha
2nd Defendant
Gilbert Mzee
3rd Defendant
Ruling
1. The 2nd and 3rd defendants raised a preliminary objection dated April 19, 2023 against the plaintiffs’ suit on the following grounds;i.That the suit is ill advised, incompetent, prejudicing and an abuse of the court process.ii.That the suit is defective for want of jurisdiction and that it violates section 13 of the Environment and Land Act.iii.That the suit is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and must be struck out/dismissed with costs.
2. I have considered the submissions by both parties in the preliminary objection filed herein dated April 19, 2023.
3. A perusal of the pleadings reveal that the plaintiffs are seeking injunctive orders to restrain all the defendants either by themselves or by their agents or any person purporting to act by them or through them from putting themselves forward as directors or officers of the 2nd plaintiff company or from issuing documents or interfering with the operations of the 2nd plaintiff company.
4. The defendants in their statement of defence are not seeking any counter claim in respect to use and occupation of land.
5. I find that the plaintiffs are also seeking general damages and I find that it is not true that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear this case.
6. I dismiss the preliminary objection dated April 19, 2023 and direct that parties comply with order 11 of the Civil Procedure Ruleswithin 30 days of this date.
7. The costs of the preliminary objection to abide the cause.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ONLINE VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS AT NAIROBI THIS 24TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2023. ........................................A. N. ONGERIJUDGEIn the presence of:……………………………. for the 1st Plaintiff................................ for the 2nd Plaintiff................................. for the 1st Defendant................................. for the 2nd Defendant................................. for the 3rd Defendant