Frashia Njeri Muthaka v Gladys Wangui Peris & 2 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Muranga
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
J G Kemei
Judgment Date
October 15, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
2
Explore the Frashia Njeri Muthaka v Gladys Wangui Peris & 2 others [2020] eKLR case summary, analyzing key judgments and legal implications in this noteworthy decision.

Case Brief: Frashia Njeri Muthaka v Gladys Wangui Peris & 2 others [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Frashia Njeri Muthaka v. Gladys Wangui Peris & Others
- Case Number: ELC No. 31 of 2017
- Court: Environment & Land Court at Murang’a
- Date Delivered: 15th October 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): J G Kemei
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The court was tasked with resolving whether it had jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiff's application following the delivery of a judgment on the matter, and whether the orders sought by the Plaintiff constituted new causes of action that could not be addressed through the current application.

3. Facts of the Case:
The Plaintiff, Frashia Njeri Muthaka, sought several orders against the Defendants, Gladys Wangui Peris, Kenneth Kinuthia Wanjiku, and Alphaxard Karagu Wanjiku, regarding a parcel of land (LOC/GITURU/72) measuring 6.9 acres. The Plaintiff claimed that the court had previously ruled in her favor on 12th April 2018, recognizing a customary trust over the land and ordering its division. However, she alleged that the Defendants had trespassed onto her portion, destroyed her crops, and threatened her, thereby infringing on her rights to quiet enjoyment and possession of the land.

4. Procedural History:
After the judgment on 12th April 2018, the Defendants filed an application for a stay of execution, which was compromised through consent, allowing time for an appeal. On 25th February 2020, the Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion seeking restraining and prohibitory orders against the Defendants. The Defendants raised a Preliminary Objection asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction due to the doctrine of functus officio, claiming that the matter was now pending before the Court of Appeal.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the doctrine of functus officio, which prevents a court from re-opening a matter once it has rendered a final decision. This principle is designed to ensure finality in litigation.
- Case Law: The court referenced *Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs West End Distributors Ltd* (1969) EA 696, emphasizing that a Preliminary Objection must be a pure point of law. The court also cited *Peterson Ndungu & others v. Kenya Power & Lighting Limited* (2018) eKLR and *Raila Odinga & 2 others v. IEBC & 3 others* (2013) eKLR, which discussed jurisdiction and the functus officio doctrine.
- Application: The court determined that the orders sought by the Plaintiff were inconsistent with the previous judgment and constituted new causes of action. The court found that the issues raised, such as trespass and property damage, required evidence and were best addressed in a fresh suit, thereby affirming that the court was functus officio.

6. Conclusion:
The court upheld the Preliminary Objection, concluding that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the Plaintiff's application due to the functus officio doctrine. Consequently, the Notice of Motion was dismissed without costs.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling.

8. Summary:
The Environment & Land Court at Murang’a ruled in favor of the Defendants, determining that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the Plaintiff's application due to the doctrine of functus officio. The decision underscores the importance of finality in legal proceedings and the need for parties to pursue new causes of action through separate suits rather than through applications in cases where a final judgment has already been rendered.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

This is the end of the summary preview.