Charles Njenga Gatimu v Kenya National Authority [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Thika
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
L. Gacheru
Judgment Date
October 08, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Charles Njenga Gatimu v Kenya National Authority [2020] eKLR, analyzing key legal principles and implications. Gain insights into the ruling and its impact on related jurisprudence.

Case Brief: Charles Njenga Gatimu v Kenya National Authority [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Charles Njenga Gatimu v. Kenya National Highway Authority
- Case Number: ELC Case No. 32 of 2020
- Court: Environment and Land Court, Thika
- Date Delivered: October 8, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): L. Gacheru
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues to be resolved by the court include:
1. Whether the Notice of Preliminary Objection raised by the Defendant/Respondent is merited.
2. Whether the Plaintiff/Applicant's Notice of Motion Application for a temporary injunction is merited.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Plaintiff, Charles Njenga Gatimu, sought a temporary injunction to prevent the Kenya National Highway Authority (Defendant) from demolishing his building on Land Reference Number Kiambaa/Ruaka/5260. The Plaintiff alleged that he had purchased the land in 2013 after verifying with the Defendant that it did not encroach on a designated road reserve. He had obtained the necessary approvals for change of user from agricultural to commercial/residential and constructed the building, which was valued at Kshs. 45,000,000. In March 2019, the Defendant's surveyors marked the building for alleged encroachment on a road reserve, which the Plaintiff disputed, claiming the Defendant had not provided a statutory notice regarding the intended demolition.

4. Procedural History:
The Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion Application on May 26, 2020, seeking a temporary injunction. The Defendant responded with a Preliminary Objection on June 9, 2020, arguing that the court lacked jurisdiction due to the Plaintiff's failure to provide the mandatory notice under Section 67(a) of the Kenya Roads Act, No. 2 of 2007. The court considered both the Notice of Motion and the Preliminary Objection together, leading to the eventual ruling.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered Section 67(a) of the Kenya Roads Act, which mandates that a written notice containing particulars of the claim must be served on the Director General of the Kenya National Highway Authority before commencing any legal proceedings against the Authority.
- Case Law: The court referenced the Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v. West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 696 to define a Preliminary Objection, emphasizing that it must raise pure points of law without disputed facts. The court also cited the case of Sumac Development Company Limited v. George Munyui Kigathi & 2 Others [2017] eKLR, which affirmed the mandatory nature of the notice requirement.
- Application: The court found that the Plaintiff had not complied with the notice requirement, which is a jurisdictional issue. The court determined that the lack of a proper notice meant it could not proceed with the case. The court also noted that the Plaintiff’s claims of having sent a notice were unsubstantiated and did not meet the legal requirements.

6. Conclusion:
The court upheld the Defendant's Preliminary Objection, determining that it lacked jurisdiction due to the Plaintiff's failure to provide the necessary notice under the Kenya Roads Act. Consequently, the court dismissed the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion Application and ruled that each party would bear its own costs.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions in this case as it was a ruling by a single judge.

8. Summary:
The ruling in Charles Njenga Gatimu v. Kenya National Highway Authority underscores the importance of adhering to statutory requirements when initiating legal proceedings against public authorities. The court's decision to uphold the Preliminary Objection reinforces the necessity for plaintiffs to provide the requisite notice, which serves to protect the jurisdictional integrity of the court system. This case highlights the procedural complexities involved in land disputes and the critical nature of compliance with established legal protocols.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Charles-Njenga-Gatimu-v-Kenya-National-Authority-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1436_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries