Lameck & another v Methodist Church in Kenya Registered Trustees & 3 others (Environment & Land Case E007 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 6463 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Mombasa Environment and Land Court struck out a suit against Kenya Power, ruling that electricity supply complaints must first go to EPRA and the Energy Tribunal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the preliminary objection met the Mukisa Biscuits threshold of a pure point of law
The Court was satisfied that the objection raised pure points of law on jurisdiction and res judicata, fitting the established definition.
The Court applied the classic definition from Mukisa Biscuits v West End Distributors and its progeny, holding that the objection went to the court's jurisdiction and to res judicata, both pure questions of law requiring no ascertainment of facts or exercise of judicial discretion.
Whether the suit was res judicata under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act
The suit was res judicata, being substantially similar to Mombasa ELC Case No. 589 of 2011 decided on 16th December, 2019.
The same parties (or parties under whom they claim) litigated the same suit property in the earlier ELC suit, determined by Justice A. Omollo. The Plaintiffs admitted being parties and that the suit property was the same, placing the matter squarely within section 7 and the Henderson v Henderson principle.
Whether the dispute fell within the Energy Act dispute resolution mechanism, ousting the Court's original jurisdiction
The grievances were complaints against a licensee (KPLC) that should first go to EPRA, then on appeal to the Energy Tribunal, with ELC jurisdiction being appellate only.
Applying Kibos Distillers, Ambuti Adega, Nicholus and Karume, the Court held that because the Plaint alleged no constitutional violations, the three-tier statutory mechanism (EPRA, Energy Tribunal, and appeal to the High Court on points of law) had to be strictly followed, so the ELC lacked original jurisdiction.
Legal principles established
#- A preliminary objection must be raised on a pure point of law and no fact should need to be ascertained
- Where a clear statutory procedure for redress exists, that procedure should be strictly followed, and a superior court's original jurisdiction does not oust the jurisdiction of competent statutory organs
- Adding or subtracting litigants does not circumvent the doctrine of res judicata
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 19th March, 2024 is found to have merit and is upheld
- 2.The suit instituted through the Plaint dated 12th February, 2024 and the Notice of Motion application dated the same day by the Plaintiffs stand struck out for lack of jurisdiction
- 3.The suit is held to be res judicata in respect of Mombasa ELC Case No. 589 of 2011 – Askeli Lameck & 121 others v Methodist Church in Kenya Trustees & 7 others
- 4.The costs of the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 19th March, 2024 to the 3rd Defendant; the Defendants shall have the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Lameck & another v Methodist Church in Kenya Registered Trustees & 3 others (Environment & Land Case E007 of 2024) [2024] KEELC 6463 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6463/eng@2024-09-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.