[2023] KEELC 19155 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 19155 (KLR)

The court found that the dispute did not concern ownership or possession of land but rather the management and control of the 1st Plaintiff company and its assets. Since the core issue was a company management dispute, the Environment and Land Court lacked jurisdiction, and the appropriate forum was the commercial...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 19155 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Tinga Traders Limited; Plaintiff: Aranga Bogonko; Plaintiff: Nelson Ogeto; Defendant: Richard Omwenga Gichana; Defendant: Benson Omwenga Mosoti; Defendant: Joshua Oindi Ogoso; Defendant: Tom Ogonyo Mosoti; Defendant: The Chief Land Registrar
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E125 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
suit struck out for want of jurisdiction; preliminary objection upheld
Judges
LN Mbugua
Legal Topics
Company Management Disputes, Injunctive Relief, Multiplicity of Suits, Jurisdiction of Courts
Source Language
en
Land and Property Commercial and Corporate Company Management Disputes Injunctive Relief Multiplicity of Suits Jurisdiction of Courts

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

Tinga Traders Limited

Plaintiff

Aranga Bogonko

Plaintiff

Nelson Ogeto

Plaintiff

Richard Omwenga Gichana

Defendant

Benson Omwenga Mosoti

Defendant

Joshua Oindi Ogoso

Defendant

Tom Ogonyo Mosoti

Defendant

The Chief Land Registrar

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Interlocutory Injunction Application

  1. 1 Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction to hear a dispute primarily concerning the management of a company owning land.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive orders restraining the defendants from interfering with the suit properties.
  3. 3 Whether the institution of parallel proceedings in different courts amounts to an abuse of court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the dispute did not concern ownership or possession of land but rather the management and control of the 1st Plaintiff company and its assets. Since the core issue was a company management dispute, the Environment and Land Court lacked jurisdiction, and the appropriate forum was the commercial court. The existence of a parallel suit in the commercial division on the same subject matter further rendered the present suit an abuse of court process. Consequently, the preliminary objection was upheld, and the suit was struck out. Each party was ordered to bear their own costs, considering their familial relationships and the circumstances of the case.

Court Disposition

suit struck out for want of jurisdiction; preliminary objection upheld

Orders

  • The suit is hereby struck out.
  • Each party shall bear their own costs of the suit.