Adam (Suing as a Personal Representative of the Estate of the Deceased Ahmed Adam) v Greenbelt Warehouse Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E0126 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5426 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court confirmed that a pending LSK disciplinary case against an advocate does not stop a separate civil lawsuit over a disputed land transaction.
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 preliminary objection dated February 7, 2025 is sustainable (that the matter is already before the Disciplinary Committee of the Law Society of Kenya)
- 2.Whether the 4th defendant should be removed as a party to the proceedings
- 3.Who should bear the costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the pending disciplinary proceedings before the Law Society of Kenya oust this court's jurisdiction
They do not; the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal handles quasi-criminal professional conduct matters and cannot grant the civil reliefs sought, so it is not an effective alternative forum
Applying Mukisa Biscuit principles, the court held that disciplinary proceedings are quasi-criminal and parallel civil and criminal/disciplinary proceedings are permissible under section 193A of the Criminal Procedure Code, as restated in Kidero v EACC. The exhaustion doctrine applies only where the primary forum has jurisdiction and can grant effective remedies, per Nicholus v Attorney General.
Whether the plaintiff has locus standi
The plaintiff, as personal representative granted ad litem, has standing; no basis was shown that the suit is an attempt to distribute the estate
The court found the plaintiff had been granted ad litem representation of the deceased vendor's estate and that no material demonstrated an improper purpose of distributing the estate through the suit. The locus objection accordingly failed.
Whether the 4th defendant should be removed as a party
No; the plaintiff's claims of breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and complicity in the disputed transfer are substantive factual issues for trial
Relying on Yaya Towers Ltd v Trade Bank Ltd and DT Dobie & Co v Muchina, the court held that striking out is drastic and reserved for the clearest cases. The claim against the 4th defendant, including his undertaking to hold the title until full payment, raised significant issues warranting full trial.
Legal principles established
#- Quasi-criminal proceedings before the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal do not bar a parallel civil suit
- Exhaustion of alternative remedies applies only where the primary forum has jurisdiction and is adequately equipped to grant the reliefs sought
- A preliminary objection must raise a pure point of law on agreed facts
- A cause of action should only be struck out when it is incurably weak
Court orders
#- 1.The preliminary objection dated February 7, 2025 is dismissed
- 2.The application dated February 7, 2025 seeking removal of the 4th defendant as a party is dismissed
- 3.Costs of both the PO and the application awarded to the plaintiff
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes; no specific provision invoked in the ruling
Relief refused
#Preliminary objection on jurisdiction
The pendency of quasi-criminal disciplinary proceedings before the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal cannot bar a civil suit; the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction over civil matters
Application to remove the 4th defendant as a party
The plaintiff has articulated substantive claims of breach of contract and fiduciary duty requiring a full trial
Costs
Both the PO and the application are dismissed with costs (to the plaintiff)
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.
In summary, both the PO dated February 7, 2025, and the application filed on the same date lack merit and are hereby dismissed with costs.
the pendency of quasi-criminal proceedings before the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal against the 4th defendant cannot serve as a bar to initiating a civil suit
The reliefs sought cannot be satisfactorily granted by the Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal; therefore, it will not constitute an appropriate and efiective forum for resolving the issues presented.
It is not a case warranting a summary dismissal by the court; instead, it must proceed to a full trial.
Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no power to make one more step.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment inconsistently identifies counsel for the plaintiff, referring to Ms. Cherono in submissions but Ms. Anyango in the attendance record
At paragraph 25 the judgment refers to 'the 4th plaintifi' where the 4th defendant is evidently meant
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Adam (Suing as a Personal Representative of the Estate of the Deceased Ahmed Adam) v Greenbelt Warehouse Limited & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E0126 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5426 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Malindi ELC (case number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5426/eng@2025-07-10
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.