SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Obuyu v Mbithi & another (Environment & Land Case E008 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 21024 (KLR) (25 October 2023) (Ruling)

[2023] KEELC 21024 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
21024
Citation
[2023] KEELC 21024 (KLR)
Decided
25 October 2023
Beta Machine-generated summary. Automatically produced by AI from the judgment text — it may be incomplete or inaccurate. Always verify against the full judgment below. Not legal advice.

Summary at a glance

TypePreliminary ObjectionPosturePreliminary Objection to Originating SummonsCoramNYUKURI
The court finds that the scope of the suit is outside the purview of Order 37 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules and that the Plaintiff does not fall within the ambit of claimants provided in Order 37 Rule 3.

Facts

The Plaintiff, Obuyu, claims to have purchased the suit property from the 2nd Defendant, Mbukoni Holdings Limited, and seeks to have the property transferred to him. The 1st Defendant, Mbithi, argues that the Plaintiff is not a vendor or purchaser and that the suit is not within the ambit of Order 37 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Issues

  • Whether the Preliminary Objection is merited?
  • Who should bear the costs of the Application?

Reasoning

The court considers the Notice of Preliminary Objection and the submissions by counsel. It determines that the Plaintiff's suit is not within the provisions of Order 37 Rule 3, as the Plaintiff is not a vendor or purchaser and no requisition or objection has been made in regard to the contract of sale.

Outcome

The court dismisses the Preliminary Objection.

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010
  • Order 37 Rule 3
Cases cited (4)
  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Ltd -vs- West End Distributors (1969) EA 696
  • Nairobi HCC No 14 of 2013(OS) Roselyn Naserian Kaina -v- Farna Apartments Ltd
  • Kiburiti v Kiburiti (1983) KLR 6W
  • Kenya Commercial Bank
⚠ This summary is experimental and generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It can contain errors, omissions, or misinterpretations and must not be relied on for legal decisions. The authoritative source is the full judgment. Please confirm every point against the original before use.
Full judgment 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case