Kinungi v Kariuki & 11 others (Environment and Land Case E094 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 8572 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to strike out an estate's land ownership claim, ruling such applications only succeed in the clearest cases and disputes should go to trial.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.whether this suit should be struck out with costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaint should be struck out as disclosing no claim by the estate over Nairobi/Block 117/74
The application was unmerited and the suit should proceed to trial
The defendants argued the estate's confirmed grant covered only LR Nairobi/Block 117/172, not the suit property, so the plaintiff lacked locus standi. The court noted the defendants' own defences admitted their parcels were subdivisions of Nairobi/Block 117/74, which the plaintiff claims was allocated to the deceased by Kamiti Farmers Co. Ltd. Since the dispute revolves around that parcel, its root and proprietorship must be determined at trial; striking out would pre-empt merits.
Legal principles established
#- The power to strike out pleadings must be sparingly exercised and only in the clearest of cases; the court should not deal with the merits at that stage
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st to 9th Defendants' Notice of Motion application dated 15th May 2025 be and is hereby dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under the Environment and Land Court Act; application under Order 2 Rule 15(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Striking out of the plaint and dismissal of the suit
The suit is not a clear case warranting summary striking out under Order 2 Rule 15(1); the root and proprietorship of Nairobi/Block 117/74 must be determined at trial
Costs
The Notice of Motion application 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.
I find that this suit is not a clear case warranting a summary procedure of striking out of pleadings and is not within the circumstances envisaged under Order 2 Rule 15 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. I will hence decline to strike it out.
In our view, the power to strike out pleadings must be sparingly exercised. It can only be exercised in clearest of cases.
In the foregoing, I find the instant Notice of Motion application unmerited and will dismiss it with costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment dated 9th December 2025 but recites considering a 'replying affidavit' to an application dated 15th May 2025 while suit hearing had not commenced since an inhibition order of 27th October 2022 - the application date postdating the suit timeline is internally consistent but the year gap between plaint (2020) and application (2025) is unusually long without explanation
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kinungi v Kariuki & 11 others (Environment and Land Case E094 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 8572 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/8572/eng@2025-12-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.