Priscillah Nakhungu Kuloba v Wycliffe Wamalwa Asimani Biketi [2017] KEELC 1478 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out a land dispute because inheritance matters belong in the Succession Court, not a parallel land case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the court should issue an order of inhibition prohibiting dealings over land parcel Bokoli/Misikhu/119 pending hearing of the suit
- 2.Whether the Environment and Land Court has jurisdiction over a dispute concerning the estate of a deceased person with a pending succession cause
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land forming part of a deceased's estate with a pending succession cause
The court has no jurisdiction to entertain the suit while the succession cause is pending; the applicant's grievances as a beneficiary belong in the Succession Court.
The suit land belonged to Biketi Wabomba, deceased, and both parties are his dependants. Letters of administration were granted to the respondent in Bungoma Succession Cause No. 136 of 2014, which is pending confirmation and distribution. Since the estate, including the suit parcel, falls to be distributed in that cause, keeping a parallel suit in the ELC would serve no purpose.
Legal principles established
#- Where the ownership and distribution of a deceased person's land is in issue and a succession cause is pending, grievances of a beneficiary must be channeled to the Succession Court and a parallel suit in the ELC cannot stand.
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is struck out
- 2.The Notice of Motion dated 5th April 2017 is struck out
- 3.No order as to costs on both the suit and the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 68 of the Land Registration Act 2012 and 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Order of inhibition prohibiting all dealings over land parcel Bokoli/Misikhu/119 pending hearing of the suit
The court held it lacked jurisdiction, the dispute being a succession matter for the High Court, and struck out both the suit and the application.
Costs
No order as to costs - the suit and the application were each struck out with no order as to costs
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
It is in the Succession Cause that the plaintiff should channel her grievances herein.
This court has no jurisdiction on this matter at the moment. There is absolutely no reason of keeping a parallel suit herein. This suit is struck out with no order as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment uses inconsistent gendered pronouns for the applicant, describing 'He prays for an order of inhibition' while elsewhere referring to 'Her application'.
Coram lists 'Mr. Anwar for the defendant' and 'Firm Milimo for the defendant' - the second entry likely should read 'plaintiff'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Priscillah Nakhungu Kuloba v Wycliffe Wamalwa Asimani Biketi [2017] KEELC 1478 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Environment & Land Case No. 119 of 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/1478/eng@2017-10-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.