Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNot stated in the judgment

Noor v Kisilu & another (Environment and Land Case E379 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 3774 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
13 May 2025
MOMogeni
2,188 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

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

#
The Plaintiff, Jibriel Mohamed Jama Noor, filed a Notice of Motion dated 18/09/2024 seeking conservatory orders restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants from executing a lease, registering, selling, transferring or encumbering Apartment 801A on LR 209/380/6 Nairobi, arising from an alleged breach of a Sale Agreement under which the 1st Defendant was to purchase the apartment for KES 15,000,000. Before the application was heard, the 1st Defendant filed a Preliminary Objection dated 4/10/2024 contending that the Plaintiff lacked locus standi. The 1st Defendant also produced a Replying Affidavit disclosing a related suit he had filed against the Plaintiff over the same apartment, and filed submissions; the Plaintiff filed neither a response to the objection nor submissions. Applying Mukisa Biscuits and Oraro v Mbaja, the court treated the locus standi question as a pure point of law fit for preliminary determination. Relying on Salomon v Salomon, the rule in Foss v Harbottle as restated in Amin Akberali Manji, and Order 4 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court held that the suit property belongs to the 2nd Defendant company, the proper plaintiff for wrongs to a company is the company itself, the Plaintiff was not shown to be a Director or authorized by company resolution to sue, and he was not a party to the Sale Agreement. The Preliminary Objection was upheld, the suit and the application were struck out, and costs were awarded against the Plaintiff.

Questions the Court framed

#

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

  1. 1.Whether the issue of locus standi raised by the 1st Defendant qualifies as a valid Preliminary Objection
  2. 2.Whether the Plaintiff has locus standi to institute the suit and the Notice of Motion Application

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether locus standi can be raised as a Preliminary Objection

Holding

Yes - the court adopted the Mukisa Biscuits and Oraro v Mbaja formulations and proceeded to determine it first

Reasoning

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.

p. 3
02

Whether the Plaintiff had locus standi to institute the suit

Holding

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

Reasoning

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.

p. 5

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. 1.The Preliminary Objection raised by the 1st Defendant is allowed
  2. 2.The suit is struck out
  3. 3.The Application dated 18/09/2024 (referenced as October 18, 2024 in the order) is struck out
  4. 4.The Plaintiff shall bear the costs of the suit

The bench

#

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

MO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction; Order 4 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules invoked on corporate authorization

Relief refused

#

Conservatory orders restraining execution of a lease of Apartment 801A on LR 209/380/6 Nairobi and restraint on dealing with the title

The Plaintiff lacked locus standi; the suit and the application were struck out

p. 5

Costs of the application to the Plaintiff

Costs follow the event; the Plaintiff was to bear the costs

p. 5

Costs

The Plaintiff shall bear the costs of the suit and application

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.

The objection raised by the 1st Defendant has merit, it is allowed and the suit is hereby struck out. For avoidance of doubt, the Application dated October 18, 2024 is also struck out.
p. 5Final orders - striking out suit and application
Costs follow the event. This suit is and has been struck out. The Plaintifi shall bear the costs arising therefrom.
p. 5Costs order
locus standi means the right to appear before and be heard in a Court of law. Without it, even when a party has a meritorious case, he cannot be heard because of that.
p. 3Meaning and consequence of locus standi
Even if he was a Director then a Company resolution should have been filed in Court to show that the Company allowed him to sue on its behalf.
p. 4Requirement of corporate authorization to sue

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

The application is dated 18/09/2024 throughout, but the final order refers to it as 'October 18, 2024'

minor

The judgment does not disclose the case number, party names of the Defendants, or the case title beyond the Plaintiff's name

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.