Chepkemoi v Chebiego & another (Environment and Land Appeal E014 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6759 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court in Eldoret struck out a land dispute appeal because the applicant was never formally joined as a party, though she may file a fresh suit.
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 Applicant is a proper party with locus standi to bring the instant application
- 2.Whether the Applicant has met the conditions for grant of an order of stay of execution
- 3.Whether the court should stay the proceedings in the lower court as prayed
- 4.Who shall bear the costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the Applicant, a legal representative of a deceased non-party, had locus standi to bring the application and appeal
The Applicant had no locus standi: neither she nor the deceased was ever joined to the lower court suit, and no court order joined them. Her application in the trial court was incompetent ab initio, the resulting ruling a nullity, and this court had no jurisdiction over the application or the appeal.
The court perused the entire lower court record and found no application or order joining the deceased or the Applicant. An application dated 28th March 2023 sought stay and review but contained no joinder prayer. Citing Alfred Njau, Daykio Plantations and Kaluma, the court held that a stranger to proceedings lacks the right to be heard, that the trial court wrongly entertained her application, and that the resulting ruling was a nullity which could not sustain an appeal.
Whether stay of execution and stay of proceedings should be granted
Not reached on the merits; the application was struck out for lack of standing
Because locus standi goes to jurisdiction, the court held it had to resolve standing first. Having found the Applicant lacked capacity, the court held that continued entertainment of the appeal would be academic and in vain, and that even otherwise the Applicant had no capacity to appeal against a null ruling. The stay conditions under Order 42 Rule 6 were therefore not determined.
Legal principles established
#- A party without locus standi cannot be heard even on whether they have a case, and proceedings conducted by or before such a party are null ab initio
- Lack of locus standi is a point of law that touches on the jurisdiction of the court and may dispose of an application or appeal
- Locus standi differs from cause of action; lack of standing does not bar redress in a separate suit
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 15th January 2024 is struck out
- 2.The Appeal is struck out
- 3.The Applicant is not condemned to pay costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court, Eldoret
- Eldoret CMCC No 382 of 1997 (renamed ELC No 362 of 2017)
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Appellate jurisdiction over the subordinate court (Civil Procedure Act and Rules); jurisdiction questioned on locus standi grounds
Relief refused
#Stay of execution of the decree dated 27th January 2022 pending appeal
The Applicant lacked locus standi, rendering the application and appeal a nullity
Stay of proceedings in Eldoret CMCC No 382 of 1997
For the same reason - no standing, hence no jurisdiction
Costs
No costs - the court declined to condemn the Applicant to pay costs: 'Having been denied audience before this court, the court will not condemn the Applicant to pay 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.
As a result, this court finds that not having been a party in the lower court, and further, not having regularly been joined to this suit, the Applicant has no capacity to sustain the instant Application dated January 15, 2024 as well as the Appeal. Both are therefore struck out. Having been denied audience before this court, the court will not condemn the Applicant to pay costs.
A party without locus standi in a civil suit lacks the right to institute and/or maintain that suit even where a valid cause of action subsists.
The proceedings with regards to the Applicant's Application in the trial court were as a result null ab initio. They ought not have been conducted before the Applicant regularised her position or at all.
Therefore, while the Applicant cannot be heard in this suit for lack of standing, she is at liberty to seek redress for any perceived wrongs regarding her parcel of land, perhaps through a separate suit.
Issues in the judgment
#Case title of the appeal not stated in the excerpt; parties other than the 1st Respondent are not named despite mention of '2nd -19th Respondents'
Internal inconsistency in dates of the Surveyor's Report: the body says 'report dated 5th April, 2024' while the Supplementary Affidavit describes a 'Surveyor's Report dated 5th April, 2023'
Applicant's own application record inconsistent: paragraph 19 states the application sought joinder whereas paragraph 19 itself records no joinder prayer was included ('say of implementation')
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chepkemoi v Chebiego & another (Environment and Land Appeal E014 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 6759 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (appeal from Eldoret CMCC No 382 of 1997; lower court suit later renamed ELC No 362 of 2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6759/eng@2024-10-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.