Mlai & 2 others v Translantic Hauliers Ltd & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E079 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5212 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a family land suit because it ignored a prior National Land Commission decision and the claimants lacked authority to sue.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.What are the legal parameters for granting orders for striking out suits?
- 2.Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 15th June, 2026 had any merit or not?
- 3.Whether the parties were entitled to the reliefs sought?
- 4.Who ought to bear the costs of the motion?
Key legal issues
#Legal parameters for striking out suits
The power to strike out pleadings is discretionary and draconian, to be exercised with the greatest care and caution, and only in plain and obvious cases
The court examined Order 2 Rule 15(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and authorities including DT Dobie & Co (K) Ltd v Muchina and Crescent Construction Ltd v KCB. It found that striking out is discretionary, must be exercised with care, and courts should strive to maintain rather than strike out suits, though it is unfair to drag a person to the seat of justice when the case against him is a non-starter.
Whether the suit is barred by res judicata due to prior NLC determination
The matters in suit had been investigated and determined by the National Land Commission, whose quasi-judicial determination had not been set aside, so the suit was a collateral attack on it
The court perused annextures showing a 2018 complaint over sub-division, alienation, transfer and issuance of titles arising from Samburu Ranch, a public hearing on 28th November 2018 at Samburu Social Hall, Kwale, and a determination dated 24th January 2019 upholding the transactions and title deeds. The NLC, established under Article 67(1) and empowered by Article 67(2)(e) and (f), exercises quasi-judicial powers; the Plaintiffs' remedy lay in an appeal to the ELC under Section 16A of the Environment and Land Court Act, not a fresh suit.
Whether the Plaintiffs had locus standi to institute the suit
The Plaintiffs lacked locus standi as they produced no written authority from the clan or proof of membership or incorporation of the Group Ranch, rendering the pleadings fatally defective
Though the Plaintiffs pleaded they were appointed representatives of the Wachanda-Ndana Family, no written consent or authority from clan members was exhibited. Further, under Sections 7 and 13 of the Land (Group Representatives) Act, Cap 287 and the Community Land Act, No. 27 of 2016, Group Ranches are body corporates that sue through duly appointed Group Representatives; individual members have no capacity to sue on its behalf. The Plaintiffs also failed to demonstrate a certificate of incorporation or membership register of the Ranch.
Costs of the motion
Costs follow the event as a general rule, but the court in its discretion ordered each party to bear its own costs
Relying on Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Halsbury's Laws of England (4th Edition, Vol.10, para 16), the court noted costs are discretionary and normally follow the event, but given the peculiar circumstances of the case, it found it reasonable, fair and proper for each party to bear its own costs.
Legal principles established
#- Striking out a pleading is a drastic, discretionary remedy exercisable only in plain and obvious cases where the pleading discloses no arguable case
- A reasonable cause of action is one with some chance of success on the allegations in the plaint alone
- Determinations of the National Land Commission pursuant to a public hearing are akin to decisions of a judicial or quasi-judicial body, and challenges to them must be mounted through the legally prescribed procedure, not collateral proceedings
- Group Ranches are body corporates with capacity to sue and be sued through duly appointed Group Representatives; individual members have no capacity to sue on its behalf without written authority
Court orders
#- 1.That the Notice of Motion application dated 15th June, 2026 to strike out the Plaint is justified and is found to be merited
- 2.That the suit by the Plaintiffs is struck out
- 3.That each party is to bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 (Environment and Land Court) - inherent jurisdiction under Sections 1A, 1B, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Costs of the application and of the suit awarded to the 1st Defendant as sought
Given the peculiar circumstances of the case, the court found it reasonable, fair and proper for each party to bear its own costs
Costs
Each party to bear its own costs
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.
a) THAT the Notice of Motion application dated 15th June, 2026 to strike out the Plaint justified and hence be and is found to be merited. b) THAT the suit by the Plaintiffs be hereby strike out. c) THAT each party to bear its own costs IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY.
The present suit constituted a collateral attack upon the findings and determinations of the National Land Commission and was therefore legally untenable.
there was no written authority from members of the said clan authorising the Plaintiffs herein to institute suit on behalf of the clan members, Thus, by that stand alone reason, notwithstanding of the provision of Article 159 ( 2 ) ( d ) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 as this is not a procedural technicality, it makes the pleadings fatally defective and null and void.
Striking out a pleading is a draconian act, which may only be resorted to, in plain cases. Whether or not a case is plain is a matter of fact….
Based on the above, it is clear that a determination was made by the National Land Commission over the suit parcels a fact that was not disclosed by the Plaintiff.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment repeatedly labels the 1st Defendant/Applicant as '1st Respondent' in the framed issues, and mislabels Issue (b) as a repetition of Issue (a), creating internal confusion
The heading describes a 'Ruling' delivered on an application, though it is analyzed as a judgment
The court lists four salient issues but states there are three
Case number of the suit is not disclosed anywhere in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mlai & 2 others v Translantic Hauliers Ltd & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E079 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 5212 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5212/eng@2026-07-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.