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

Republic v Soy Division Land Disputes Tribunal & 2 others; Rotich (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E048 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1079 (KLR) (26 February 2026) (Ruling)

[2026] KEELC 1079 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
1079
Citation
[2026] KEELC 1079 (KLR)
Decided
26 February 2026
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeMiscellaneous ApplicationPostureRespondent filed a Notice of Preliminary Objection (PO) and the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion Application.CoramHON. C. K. YANO
Holding

The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 27th July, 2025 is a nullity and the suit is struck out for lack of locus standi.

Facts

The Applicant, Kipsongok Rotich, passed away in 2007. The 3rd Respondent filed a Judicial Review Application in 2006, which was granted leave to file a substantive Motion. The Applicant did not file the substantive motion and the suit abated. The Applicant filed a new application in 2025.

Issues

  1. Whether the 3rd Respondent’s Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 27th July 2025 is a proper PO.
  2. Whether the Interested Party/Applicant has the requisite locus standi to maintain this suit.
  3. Whether the suit is barred by virtue of Section 4(4) of the Limitation of Actions Act.
  4. Who shall bear the costs of this suit?

Reasoning

The court ruled that the Applicant, who passed away in 2007, lacked locus standi and that the suit was time-barred due to the Limitation of Actions Act.

Outcome

The suit is struck out.

Orders

  • The Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 27th July, 2025 is dismissed.
  • The suit is struck out for lack of locus standi.
  • The Interested Party/Applicant shall bear the costs of the suit.

Authorities cited

Legislation (1)
  • Limitation of Actions Act, Cap. 22 of the Laws of Kenya
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case