[2024] KEELC 7056 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 7056 (KLR)

The court found that the application lacked merit because the cases of the Second to Sixth Plaintiffs had abated as of 14th February 2024 and had not been revived, making substitution impossible and precluding any orders against them. The applicant, not being a plaintiff, lacked standing to seek the orders. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 7056 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ashon Sikolia Wanyonyi; Plaintiff: Patrick Kisaka; Plaintiff: Eddy Wandela Tela; Plaintiff: Kisaka Mwongolo; Plaintiff: David Kiberenge; Plaintiff: Patrick Barasa Mukweyi; Defendant: Chief Land Registrar; Defendant: Benjamin Barasa Wafula
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 3 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
DO Ohungo
Legal Topics
Interlocutory Injunctions, Substitution of Parties, Abatement of Suit, Land Compensation Disputes
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Substitution of Parties Abatement of Suit Land Compensation Disputes

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashon Sikolia Wanyonyi

Plaintiff

Patrick Kisaka

Plaintiff

Eddy Wandela Tela

Plaintiff

Kisaka Mwongolo

Plaintiff

David Kiberenge

Plaintiff

Patrick Barasa Mukweyi

Plaintiff

Chief Land Registrar

Defendant

Benjamin Barasa Wafula

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to ex parte orders restraining parties from dealing with the disputed land pending determination of the suit.
  2. 2 Whether substitution of deceased plaintiffs is permissible where the suit has abated.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant, not being a plaintiff, has locus standi to seek the orders sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application lacked merit because the cases of the Second to Sixth Plaintiffs had abated as of 14th February 2024 and had not been revived, making substitution impossible and precluding any orders against them. The applicant, not being a plaintiff, lacked standing to seek the orders. The court emphasized the need to avoid unnecessary interlocutory applications and to proceed to a hearing of the main suit on its merits. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • Amended Notice of Motion dated 26th February 2024 is dismissed.
  • Costs in the cause.