Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedEnvironment & Land Case E005 of 2023

Pilster Mumbo Owidi (Suing as the Personal Administrator and Representative of the Estate of Thadayo Mumbo Owidi) v Daniel Odhiambo Ndege

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
20 November 2023
GOGMA Ongondo
228 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~1 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Homa Bay court let a land defendant withdraw his challenge to the plaintiff's right to sue, with each side covering its own costs.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a brief interlocutory ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay (GMA Ongondo, J) in Environment & Land Case E005 of 2023. The respondent/defendant, Daniel Odhiambo Ndege, had filed a preliminary objection dated October 17, 2023 contending, inter alia, that the applicant/plaintiff, Pilster Mumbo Owidi, suing as personal administrator and representative of the estate of Thadayo Mumbo Owidi, had no locus standi to mount the suit. When the matter came before the court, Mr Ochich, learned counsel for the defendant, applied to withdraw the preliminary objection with no orders as to costs, on the basis that it had been overtaken by events. Mr Nyanga, learned counsel for the plaintiff, raised no objection to the withdrawal. The court considered the application in its entirety, found it merited in the circumstances, and marked the preliminary objection as withdrawn with no orders as to costs. The ruling does not determine the merits of the locus standi question or the underlying land dispute; the suit presumably proceeds. No authorities or statutes are cited, and the ruling is a single-judge decision disposing of an interlocutory application by consent.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the respondent's application to withdraw the preliminary objection dated October 17, 2023 should be allowed, and on what costs terms

Key legal issues

#
01

Withdrawal of a preliminary objection by consent

Holding

The court allowed the respondent to withdraw the preliminary objection challenging the applicant's locus standi, with no orders as to costs, finding the application to withdraw merited.

Reasoning

Counsel for the respondent applied to withdraw the preliminary objection on the basis that it had been overtaken by events. Counsel for the applicant raised no objection. The court considered the application in its entirety and found it merited in the circumstances, marking the objection as withdrawn without costs.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#

    Court orders

    #
    1. 1.The preliminary objection dated October 17, 2023 is marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs

    The bench

    #

    One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

    GO
    majority

    Wrote the judgment

    Jurisdiction invoked
    Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (suit concerning land); the ruling itself does not state the provision

    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.

    Accordingly, the preliminary objection is hereby marked as withdrawn with no orders as to costs.
    p. 1Final orders - withdrawal of preliminary objection
    Mr Ochich, learned counsel for the defendant has made an application to withdraw the preliminary objection with no orders as to costs on the basis that the same has been overtaken by events.
    p. 1Basis for withdrawal

    Issues in the judgment

    #
    minor

    Respondent's name appears as both 'Ndege' in the title and 'Ondenge' in the body

    Key timeline

    #

    Practical implications

    #

    Frequently asked questions

    #

    Cite this brief

    #

    Cite this brief

    Caselaw, "Pilster Mumbo Owidi (Suing as the Personal Administrator and Representative of the Estate of Thadayo Mumbo Owidi) v Daniel Odhiambo Ndege", Case Analysis (2023). Environment & Land Case E005 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/21726/eng@2023-11-20

    Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.