1. This ruling determines the notice of preliminary objection by the 2nd Defendant dated 21/04/2025. The primary ground for the said Objection is that this Honorable Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the Claim herein by dint of proceedings and orders in favour of the 7th Defendant in Tracking Number: 83M52019 Case Number: Bungoma MCELC/6/2019 Citation: Anne Naliaka Sikuku Vs Duncun W.Wekesa.
2. A brief background of this matter is that the Plaintiff/Applicant filed originating summons of an even date in which they sought orders for setting aside various judgments, rulings, and orders issued by various courts of concurrent jurisdiction between 2004 and 2023, Declarations that several previous suits relating to Plot No. 1921 Ndalu/Bungoma (part of LR No. Ndalu/Kapchonge/Block 1/956) were null and void, orders expunging an undated bill of costs arising from the impugned rulings, damages against the 1st Respondent for alleged destruction of trees as per the Bungoma District Forester’s Valuation Report, orders against the 13th and 14th Respondents for failure to perform their constitutional mandate; and Costs of the application.
3. When the matter came for mention for directions, the parties agreed that the Preliminary Objection be canvassed by way of written submissions. The Plaintiff/Applicant filed submissions dated 25/04/2025 while the 2nd Defendant/Respondent filed submissions dated 25/07/2025 which this court has carefully considered.
Analysis and determination.
4. This being a Preliminary Objection, the court has to satisfy itself that it falls within the meaning of a preliminary objection as set set out in in the locus clasicus case of Mukisa Biscuits Ltd Vs West End Distributors Ltd (1969) EA 696. In Oraro v. Mbaja [2005]1KLR141, where the court stated that:
“A preliminary objection correctly understood is a point of law which must not be blurred with factual details liable to be contested and in any event, to be proved through the process of evidence. Any assertion which claims to be preliminary objection, and yet it bears factual aspects calling for proof, or seeks to adduce evidence for its authentication, is not as a matter of legal principle, a true preliminary objection which the court should allow to proceed.”
5. How is jurisdiction defined? Jurisdiction is defined in Halsbury’s Laws of England (4th Ed.) Vol. 9 as “…the authority which a Court has to decide matters that are litigated before it or to take cognizance of matters presented in a formal way for decision.”. Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, defines jurisdiction as the Court’s power to entertain, hear and determine a dispute before it.
6. This Court has carefully considered the said Notice of Preliminary Objection by the 2nd Defendant/Respondent dated 21/04/2025 together with the pleadings and proceedings on record. The said objection is premised on grounds that this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the present suit on account of existing proceedings and subsisting orders relating to the same subject matter which are pending or have already been determined by courts of competent jurisdiction.
7. Upon perusal of the pleadings and annexures, it is evident that the Plaintiff/Applicant has made extensive reference to proceedings, rulings, and directions issued in other courts. Notably, he has not approached this Court in the capacity of an appellate court, nor invoked the appropriate procedures for review or appeal as prescribed by law. Instead, he has instituted the present suit as a fresh action, yet the issues raised are clearly intertwined with, and directly challenge, the outcomes of previously concluded cases. Without delving into the merits, it becomes apparent that the Originating Summons invite this Court to revisit and determine matters already adjudicated upon by courts of competent jurisdiction. In essence, the Plaintiff seeks orders that would have the effect of overturning or usurping decisions made in those earlier proceedings. Such an invitation offends the doctrine of finality of litigation and would amount to this Court exceeding its lawful jurisdiction, as it cannot sit on appeal over, vary, or nullify orders properly issued by courts of concurrent jurisdiction.
8. It is imperative to note that, unlike the High Court which is expressly vested with supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and quasi-judicial bodies under Article 165(6) and (7) of the Constitution, this Court does not possess such powers. The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court enables it to call for the record of any proceedings before a subordinate court or tribunal and to issue appropriate orders to ensure the fair and lawful exercise of judicial authority. However, no similar constitutional or statutory provision extends that mandate to this Court. To invite this Court to assume such powers would therefore amount to asking it to arrogate itself and exercise a jurisdiction that it does not have, contrary to the constitutional structure and hierarchy of courts. This Court cannot purport to review, vary, or supervise decisions made by other courts of competent jurisdiction, as doing so would not only contravene the doctrine of separation of powers.
9. In addition, this Court observes that the Plaintiff’s pleadings are poorly drawn and fail to disclose a clear or justiciable cause of action. The inclusion of sweeping allegations of corruption and fraud against judicial officers and various public and private institutions is misplaced, as there are established constitutional and statutory mechanisms through which such grievances ought to be addressed. The invocation of this Court’s jurisdiction to deal with generalized allegations of institutional impropriety, unsupported by cogent evidence, is both inappropriate and untenable.
10. In the circumstances, this Court finds that the present suit serves no legitimate legal purpose. It is frivolous, in that it lacks substance and raises no arguable issues for determination; vexatious, in that it seeks to reopen and relitigate matters already decided and settled; and an abuse of the court process, as it misuses judicial time and resources in pursuit of reliefs that this Court has no jurisdiction to grant.
11. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court finds that the preliminary objection raised by the 2nd Defendant is well-founded both in law and in fact. The issues raised go to the root of the Court’s jurisdiction and the competence of the suit before it. Accordingly, the preliminary objection is hereby upheld, and the suit as filed is declared frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of the court process. Consequently, the Originating Summons is hereby struck out in its entirety, with costs to the 2nd Defendant/Respondent.
12. It is so ordered.
DATED SIGNED and DELIVERED at BUNGOMA this 11th day of December, 2025.
……………………………..
HON.E.C CHERONO
ELC JUDGE
In the presence of;
1. Plaintiff/Applicant-present.
2. Liko (2nd Defendant/Respondent.
3. Bett C/A.
| 7777 |