Dokhole & another v Usinfecha & 5 others (Environment and Land Appeal 1 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3266 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a land appeal because the administrator sued over the wrong deceased's estate and refiled an already-decided 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 1st Appellant was the lawful and legal administrator of Newa Dokhole
- 2.Whether the suit by the 1st Appellant and by extension this appeal disclose any reasonable cause of action
- 3.Whether the suit in the subordinate court was/is prohibited by the doctrine of res judicata or otherwise
Key legal issues
#Locus standi of the 1st Appellant as administrator
The grant of letters of administration ad litem was in respect of Newa Dokhole, but the suit property was registered in the name of Newa Dogre; with no evidence the names refer to the same person, the 1st Appellant lacked locus standi.
The certificate of title showed Newa Dogre as registered owner of Marsabit/Jirime/658. The grant ad litem obtained on 25th February 2016 made no reference to the deceased also being known as Newa Dogre. Courts cannot proceed on supposition. Per Section 82 of the Law of Succession Act and Chudasama v Chudasama, only a duly appointed administrator may sue for a deceased's estate; without a grant over the named proprietor's estate, the suit was incompetent.
Whether a reasonable cause of action was disclosed
The 1st Appellant had no actionable rights over the suit properties by the time of the Further Amended Plaint, hence no reasonable cause of action.
Marsabit/Jirime/658 had been transferred and registered in the 2nd Appellant's name on 30th August 2018, extinguishing any rights of the previous owner or his estate. Parcels 445 and 449 were registered in the 2nd Appellant's name in 2014. A cause of action requires prima facie issues capable of being interrogated, not fanciful claims.
Res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act
The suit was res judicata, the claims mirroring those determined in Marsabit ELC No. 5 of 2017 and subsequent proceedings.
Marsabit ELC No. 5 of 2017, involving the same parcels and near-similar reliefs, was heard and dismissed on 3rd December 2018; the review application was dismissed in January 2019; an appeal (Isiolo ELC E006 of 2021) was dismissed in April 2024 and a further Court of Appeal application dismissed in July 2024. Adding parties and causes of action was a cosmetic face-lift that did not evade res judicata, per Order 3 Rule 4 and the Supreme Court's Muiri Coffee Estate decision.
Scope of first appellate jurisdiction
The court, as first appellate court, has jurisdiction to exhaustively re-evaluate evidence and reach independent conclusions, subject to caution since it neither saw nor heard the witnesses.
Guided by Section 78 of the Civil Procedure Act and the classic authorities (Selle v Associated Motor Boat Co; Abok James Odera; Gitobu Imanyara), the court restated that it is not bound by the trial court's factual findings but must defer to them unless there is a compelling reason, given the disadvantage of not having heard witnesses.
Legal principles established
#- A suit concerning a deceased person's estate can only be commenced and maintained by the legal administrator of that estate
- Adding parties and causes of action to a suit (a cosmetic face-lift) does not defeat res judicata
- A first appellate court must re-evaluate the evidence and reach its own conclusions while allowing for the fact that it did not see or hear the witnesses
Court orders
#- 1.The appeal be and is hereby dismissed.
- 2.The Ruling and orders of the trial court be and are hereby affirmed.
- 3.Costs of the appeal be and are hereby awarded to the Respondents save for the 4th Respondent who did not participate in the appeal.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Chief Magistrate's Court (Environment and Land), Marsabit
- Marsabit CM ELC No. 13 of 2018
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 78 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 (first appeal from subordinate court)
Relief refused
#Allowance of the appeal against the striking out of Marsabit CM ELC No. 13 of 2018
1st Appellant lacked locus standi (grant ad litem named Newa Dokhole not Newa Dogre, the registered owner); no reasonable cause of action; suit res judicata
Costs
Costs of the appeal awarded to the Respondents save for the 4th Respondent who did not participate in the appeal.
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.
There being no grant of letters of administration over and in respect of the estate of Newa Dogre, who is indicated to have been the registered owner of LR No. Marsabit/Jirime/658, there is no gainsaying that the 1st Appellant herein could not have filed any suit touching on and/or concerning the said property.
the inclusion of additional parties and additional/further cause of actions [which is tantamount to some cosmetic facelift] does not take away the dispute outside the snares of res judicata.
It may very well be that the two names refer to one and the same person. However, there is no gainsaying that while seeking the grant of letters of administration ad litem it was incumbent upon the 1st Appellant to indicate that the Newa Dokhole was also known as [aka] Newa Dogre.
What is a reasonable cause of action? It is such a claim and/or interest that discloses prima facie issues that are capable of being investigated and/or interrogated by a court of law.
i. The appeal be and is hereby dismissed. ii. The Ruling and orders of the trial court be and are hereby affirmed. iii. Costs of the appeal be and are hereby awarded to the Respondents save for the 4th Respondent who did not participate in the appeal.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistency in the record on which suit preceded which: the Appellants asserted ELC No. 13 of 2018 (formerly Meru ELC No. 180 of 2016) was filed earlier than Marsabit ELC No. 5 of 2017, yet bore a 2018 number against a 2017 one; the court did not resolve this chronology expressly.
Grounds of appeal attribute the trial ruling inconsistently to a male magistrate ('regarding the issues for determination, parties and subject matter of the dispute') and later to a female magistrate.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Biwott & 2 others (Suing as the Official of Chepnyaliliet Self Help Group) v Shunkur & another (Environment and Land Case E012 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5169 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 5169 (KLR)6 Aug 2026applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Dokhole & another v Usinfecha & 5 others (Environment and Land Appeal 1 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 3266 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Environment and Land Court Appeal from Marsabit CM ELC No. 13 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3266/eng@2025-04-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.