Automated Summary
Key Facts
The court ruled on an application to strike out a land dispute case (Kitale Land Case No. 149 of 2016) between Ngurakapel Ng'iro (suing as the Legal Administrator of his late father's estate) and Alexander A. Reuben (suing as the Legal Representative of Kariwo Lokwanyang Kerker). The applicant argued the suit should be dismissed as it relates to the same land (West Pokot/Chemwochoi/269) and parties as a prior case (Kitale ELC No. 75 of 2015). The court found the parties and causes of action differ: the plaintiff in the current suit is not a defendant in the prior case, and the claims (fraudulent registration in this suit vs. eviction in the prior case) are distinct. The strike-out application was dismissed with costs.
Deceased Name
Ngiro Chachakin
Issues
- The court determined that the subject matter land in both suits is the same, specifically West Pokot/Chemwochoi/269. However, the claims in each suit differ, with the current suit involving adverse possession and fraud claims not present in the previous case.
- The court examined whether the parties in the current suit are the same as in Kitale ELC No. 75 of 2015. It found that the plaintiff in this suit is not a party in the previous case, as the defendants in the previous case are not the administrators of the estate in question.
- The court assessed whether the current suit should be struck out under Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules for being scandalous, frivolous, or an abuse of process. It concluded that the application to strike out lacked merit as the parties and cause of action were not the same as in the related case.
Holdings
The court dismissed the application to strike out the suit, determining that while the subject matter land (West Pokot/Chemwochoi/269) is the same in both cases, the parties and cause of action differ. The plaintiff in this case is not a party in the prior Kitale ELC No. 75 of 2015, and the application was filed before the plaint was amended to include adverse possession claims. The court found the application lacks merit and upheld the plaintiff's right to pursue an independent suit.
Remedies
The court dismissed the application for striking out the suit, finding it had no merits, and ordered that the costs be awarded to the respondent. The application was filed before the plaint was amended, and the court determined that the parties and cause of action were not the same as the previous suit, thus upholding the validity of the current case.
Probate Status
Letters of Administration granted for the Estate of Ngiro Chachakin
Legal Principles
The court considered the doctrine of adverse possession as a key element in the plaintiff's claim, which was introduced through an amended plaint. The plaintiff abandoned the fraud claim in favor of adverse possession, and the court found the striking out application based on the original pleadings to be overtaken by events.
Precedent Name
- Transcend Media Group Limited v Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission (IEBC)
- Dev Surinder Kumar Bij v Agility Logistics Limited
Executor Name
- Alexander A. Reuben
- Ngurakapel Ng'iro
Cited Statute
Civil Procedure Rules
Executor Appointment
- Suing as the Legal Representative of the Kariwo Lokwanyang Kerker
- Suing as the Legal Administrator of the Estate of Ngiro Chachakin
Judge Name
Mwangi Njoroge
Passage Text
- The plaintiff in this suit is Ngurakapel Ng'iro (suing as the Legal Administrator of the Estate of Ngiro Chachakin) while the names of the defendants on the case title in Kitale ELC No. 75 of 2015 are Nguriatudo Ngiroo and Joseph Ngiroo Chachakin. In Kitale ELC No. 75 of 2015, Alexandar A. Reuben seeks an order for eviction of the defendants from the suitland. The plaintiff herein is therefore not a defendant therein.
- It would appear to this court then that the striking out of a suit for being scandalous, frivolous and an abuse of the process of the court is usually done more on the basis of the merits of the cause of action rather than on the premise of the mere pendency of a related suit.
- The suit against the plaintiff's brothers can be maintained independently of this suit. ... The relationship between the plaintiff in the instant case and the defendants in Kitale ELC No. 75 of 2015 is not sufficient to entitle the applicant to an order striking out this suit.