Noor v Kisilu & another (Environment and Land Case E379 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3774 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out a man's suit over a company-owned apartment because he had no legal authority to sue on the company's behalf.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether locus standi can be raised as a Preliminary Objection
Yes - the court adopted the Mukisa Biscuits and Oraro v Mbaja formulations and proceeded to determine it first
The court recited the locus classicus definition of a preliminary objection as a point of law capable of disposing of the suit, and Oraro v Mbaja's caution that factual matters cannot be raised preliminarily. It found that where the Plaintiff's lack of standing arose from undisputed pleadings (the company owning the land and being party to the agreement), the issue was a pure point of law warranting preliminary determination before the Notice of Motion.
Whether the Plaintiff had locus standi to institute the suit
No - the suit property belonged to the 2nd Defendant company, the Plaintiff was not shown to be a Director or authorized by company resolution, so he lacked standing
Applying Salomon v Salomon and the rule in Foss v Harbottle as restated in Amin Akberali Manji, the court held the company is the proper plaintiff for wrongs to it. The CR 12 showed the Plaintiff was not a Director; even if he were, Order 4 Rule 4 requires corporate authorization and a written company resolution to sue. The Plaintiff was not a party to the Sale Agreement and filed no response to the objection.
Legal principles established
#- A company is the proper plaintiff for wrongs done to it; an individual who is not duly authorized cannot sue on its behalf
- Where a plaintiff is a corporation, the verifying affidavit must be sworn by a duly authorized officer
Court orders
#- 1.The Preliminary Objection raised by the 1st Defendant is allowed
- 2.The suit is struck out
- 3.The Application dated 18/09/2024 (referenced as October 18, 2024 in the order) is struck out
- 4.The Plaintiff shall bear the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction; Order 4 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules invoked on corporate authorization
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Noor v Kisilu & another (Environment and Land Case E379 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3774 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3774/eng@2025-05-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.