I. Introduction
1. Before this Court for its determination are two ( 2 ) interlocutory pleadings arising in the present appeal, namely:
i. the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 9 th February, 2026 lodged by the 1 st Respondent/Applicant; and
ii. the Notice of Motion application dated 17 th April, 2026 by SAUMU ABDALLA NIMATIKO (Suing of her own accord and as Legal Representative of the Estate of HAMISI MWABARUA the 1 st Respondent seeking, principally, the striking out of the Memorandum of Appeal and the dismissal of the appeal in limine.
2. The impugned application is premised upon the contention that the appeal before this Court is incompetent for want of proper service of the Memorandum of Appeal upon the Respondents, improper joinder of parties and alleged want of jurisdiction on the part of this Court to entertain the appeal. According to the 1 st Respondent/Applicant, these defects were fundamental and render the appeal incurably defective and incapable of being sustained in law.
3. Upon service, the Appellant/Respondent opposed both the Preliminary Objection and the application through filing of a Replying Affidavit sworn by John Kaggia Kariuki and dated 30 th April, 2026 , together with a detailed written submissions. The Appellant/Respondent maintained that the Memorandum of Appeal was duly served shortly after filing, that the Record of Appeal was served immediately after certified proceedings became available. That the issues raised by the Respondent were either factual disputes incapable of determination through a Preliminary Objection or procedural matters curable under the provision of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution and the Overriding Objective provisions of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21.
II. The Notice of Preliminary Objection by the 1 st Respondent
4. The Preliminary objection was based on the following aspects that:
a). The Honourable Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the instant Cause/Proceedings, on account of the express mandatory provisions of Sections 5, Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21, Laws of Kenya as read with Sections 13 and 16, Environment & Land Court Act, Cap. 8D and Order 42 Rule 12, Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, Laws of Kenya, in that:
i. The Appellant/Respondent had unprocedurally joined into the Appeal a Party that had never been a Party to the Primary Suit, without leave of Court;
ii. The Appellant/Respondent had never served any Memorandum of Appeal upon the 1 st Respondent/Applicant and/or Counsel on record, whether within the express, mandatory timelines stipulated by Law or at all.
iii. There existed no valid appeal capable of determination by the Court.
5. Therefore, the 1 st Respondent/Applicant sought for:
i. Summary Dismissal of the Appellant’s entire Suit/Cause/Appeal herein, with Costs to the 1 st Respondent.
III. The Notice of Motion application dated 17 th April, 2026 by the 1 st Respondent/Applicant
6. The 1 st Respondent/Applicant further filed a Notice of Motion Application dated 17 th April, 2026 and sought for the following prayers:-
a) That the Honourable Court be Pleased to strike out the Memorandum Of Appeal lodged herein on 25 th September, 2025.:
b) JOHN KAGGIA KARIUKI
c) JOHN MWAURA NDUNG’U
i. to attend Court physically on a date to be determined by the Honourable Court for purposes of Cross-examination as regards the contents of their Affidavits sworn herein on 21 st February, 2025 (Paragraphs 2-17 and 2-9, respectively, together with all respective annexures thereto).
d) THAT consequently, the Honourable Court be Pleased to dismiss the Appeal subject hereof initiated by way of Memorandum Of Appeal lodged herein on 25 th September, 2025.
e) THAT the Costs of this Application be provided for.
7. The application is premised upon the grounds appearing on its face, testimonial facts and the averment made out under the Supporting Affidavit of SAUMU ABDALLA NIMATIKO, the 1 st Respondent/Applicant herein, sworn on 17the April 2026. In summary, he averred as follows:-
a) She instituted the civil case “ Kwale CM ELC No. E035 of 2022” against the Appellant and the Land Registrar, Kwale, seeking declaratory, injunctive and consequential orders over Land Parcel No. KWALE/DIANI SETTLEMENT SCHEME/83 (Hereinafter referred to as “The Suit Land”).
b) On 7 th June, 2024, the sub - ordinate court entered Judgment in her favour.
c) Thereafter, being aggrieved, the Appellant/Respondent filed an application dated 21 st February, 2025 seeking to set aside the Judgment.
d) By a ruling delivered on 3 rd September, 2025, the trial court allowed her application dated 7 th April, 2025 directing that the Appellant/Respondent, John Kaggia Kariuki, and one John Mwaura Ndung'u attend court for purposes of cross-examination on the contents of their respective affidavits.
e) Dissatisfied with that interlocutory ruling, the Appellant lodged the present appeal.
f) The appeal was incompetent and liable to be struck out for failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements.
g) The Memorandum of Appeal was lodged on 25 th September, 2025, but neither she nor her advocates on record were ever served with the Memorandum of Appeal within the timelines prescribed by law or at all.
h) Despite of the institution of the appeal, the Appellant/Respondent took no steps to notify her of the proceedings and deliberately proceeded without effecting service upon the parties entitled to participate in the appeal.
i) Therefore, the appeal remained incompetent from its inception and incapable of being sustained in law.
j) It was only on 9 th February, 2026, while counsel for the 1 st Respondent/Applicant was physically present before this Court in connection with another matter, that he fortuitously became aware of the existence of the present appeal.
k) Upon perusing the court file, the Counsel allegedly discovered that the Appellant had never served the Memorandum of Appeal or any other pleadings upon the 1 st Respondent/Applicant nor her advocates.
l) That omission constituted a deliberate violation of the mandatory provisions governing appellate procedure and denied her the opportunity to participate in the proceedings from the outset.
m) The Appellant/Respondent improperly introduced the Chief Land Registrar, Nairobi, as a party to the appeal notwithstanding that the proceedings before the sub - ordinate court had been conducted against the Land Registrar, Kwale.
n) The Chief Land Registrar had never been a party to the proceedings before the trial court and that the Appellant/Respondent neither sought nor obtained leave of the Court before introducing a new party at the appellate stage.
o) Therefore the appeal offended the provisions governing appellate jurisdiction and was fatally defective.
p) By reason of the Appellant/Respondent's failure to effect service of the Memorandum of Appeal and the improper joinder of a party who never participated in the sub - ordinate court proceedings, there existed no valid appeal capable of being heard and determined by this Court.
q) Thus, the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in its present form and that the only appropriate remedy was to strike out the Memorandum of Appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine.
r) The impugned appeal was brought solely for the purpose of delaying the implementation of the ruling delivered on 3 rd September, 2025 and frustrating the expeditious conclusion of the proceedings pending before the sub - ordinate court.
s) The Appellant had persistently employed procedural manoeuvres to delay the hearing of the dispute while continuing to enjoy the benefit of the orders issued by the trial court.
t) In conclusion, the defects complained of were not mere procedural technicalities capable of being cured under the provision of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, but fundamental breaches of mandatory legal provisions governing the institution and prosecution of appeals.
u) Therefore, she urged the Court to allow the Notice of Motion as prayed, strike out the Memorandum of Appeal dated 25 th September, 2025, dismiss the appeal with costs and uphold the integrity of the appellate process.
IV. The responses by the Appellant/Respondent
8. As indicated hereinabove, the Appellant/Respondent opposed both the Notice of Preliminary Objection and the Notice of Motion through his Replying Affidavit sworn at Nairobi on 30 th April, 2026. He deposed as follows that:
a) He had read and fully understood the Notice of Motion application dated 17 th April, 2026 together with the Supporting Affidavit sworn by the 1 st Respondent/Applicant.
b) He categorically opposed the application in its entirety. He averred that the allegations contained in the Supporting Affidavit were false, misleading and deliberately calculated to mislead this Honourable Court.
c) The present Appeal was competently instituted on 25 th September, 2025, well within the statutory period of thirty (30) days prescribed for lodging appeals from sub - ordinate courts.
d) Following the delivery of the impugned ruling by the Learned Principal Magistrate in the civil case of:- “Kwale MCELC No. E035 of 2022” on 3 rd September, 2025. He annexed an extract of the Case Tracking System (CTS) activities marked as “JK-1” to demonstrate that the appeal was lodged within time.
e) Immediately after filing the Memorandum of Appeal, he caused it to be duly served upon the 1 st Respondent/Applicant and her Advocates, the Law firm of M/s. Ngonze & Ngonze Advocates on 26 th September, 2025, being one day after the appeal had been lodged.
f) Therefore, he maintained that the 1 st Respondent/Applicant's allegation that the Memorandum of Appeal was never served was entirely false and unsupported by the factual record.
g) The Record of Appeal was subsequently served upon the 1 st Respondent/Applicant's advocates on 3 rd February, 2026 and upon the 1 st Respondent/Applicant on 10 th February, 2026.
h) During the interval between the filing of the Memorandum of Appeal and the service of the Record of Appeal was occasioned solely by the time taken to obtain certified proceedings and copies of the lower court record.
i) According to the Appellant, this delay was fully disclosed to the Court during the mention held on 28 th October, 2025, whereupon leave was granted to file the Record of Appeal upon receipt of the certified proceedings.
j) In support thereof, he annexed a copy of the Affidavit of Service dated 13 th February, 2026, marked as “JK-2.”
k) The 1 st Respondent/Applicant's advocates had, at all material times, been aware of the existence and pendency of the appeal since September, 2025, and that their contention that they only became aware of the proceedings on 9 th February, 2026 was false, misleading and an afterthought calculated to create a basis for the striking out of the appeal.
l) He maintained that the chronology of service and the documents filed before the Court clearly disproved the Respondent's allegations.
m) In any event, both Respondents had by then been served with all the requisite pleadings relating to the appeal and had actively participated in the proceedings by filing the present Preliminary Objection, the Notice of Motion application and written submissions.
n) The Respondents had failed to demonstrate any prejudice whatsoever arising from the alleged delay in service, if any, and that no miscarriage of justice had been occasioned to them.
o) The instant application was nothing more than a deliberate attempt to avoid a determination of the appeal on its merits.
p) The appeal raised substantial and arguable issues concerning the propriety and legality of the ruling delivered by the Learned Principal Magistrate on 3 rd September, 2025, particularly the order directing the cross-examination of the Appellant and another deponent before the determination of the application to set aside the Judgment.
q) Those issues deserved to be heard and determined on their merits rather than being defeated through procedural objections.
r) In conclusion, it would be in the interests of justice, fairness and the overriding objective of the Court for the appeal to proceed to full hearing and determination on its merits.
s) He accordingly urged the Court to dismiss both the Preliminary Objection and the Notice of Motion with costs and to issue appropriate directions for the expeditious hearing of the appeal.
V. Submissions by the Parties
9. On 21 st April, 2026, this Honourable Court directed that both the Preliminary Objection and the Notice of Motion application be canvassed by way of written submissions. By the time of penning down this ruling, only the Appellant/Respondent had complied with the directions of the Court by filing his written submissions dated 17 th June, 2026. On accessing from both the Judiciary CTS Portal nor the ELC Registry, there was no written submission on record filed on behalf of the 1 st Respondent/Applicant.
10. Consequently, this Court shall determine the Preliminary Objection and the Notice of Motion on the basis of the pleadings, affidavits, the applicable law and the Appellant/Respondent's written submissions.
A. The Written Submissions by the Appellant/Respondent
11. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Respondent commenced the submissions by setting out the factual background giving rise to the present appeal. Mr. Nyamwaro Advocate submitted that the dispute revolved around the suit land, which was the subject of Kwale CMELC No. E035 of 2022. The Learned Counsel submitted that following the delivery of the ex - parte Judgment on 7 th June, 2024, the Appellant/Respondent unsuccessfully sought to set aside through an application dated 21 st February, 2025. Thereafter, the trial Court, vide its ruling delivered on 3 rd September, 2025, allowed the 1 st Respondent/Applicant's application seeking leave to cross-examine the Appellant/Respondent and another deponent, prompting the present appeal.
12. The Learned Counsel averred that after the impugned ruling, the Appellant/Respondent lodged the Memorandum of Appeal within the prescribed statutory period and subsequently filed the Record of Appeal upon obtaining certified proceedings from the sub - ordinate court. It was the contention by the Counsel that the Memorandum of Appeal was served upon the Respondents on 26 th September, 2025, whereas the Record of Appeal was served upon the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents on 3 rd February, 2026 and 10 th February, 2026, respectively. It was submitted that the delay in serving the Record of Appeal was fully explained to the Court during the mention held on 28 th October, 2025, and arose solely from the delay in obtaining certified proceedings from the lower court.
13. The Learned Counsel identified three principal issues for determination, namely: whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as alleged in the Preliminary Objection; whether the Memorandum of Appeal and the Record of Appeal were properly served upon the Respondents; and whether the appeal ought to proceed to hearing and determination on its merits.
14. On the question of jurisdiction. The Counsel submitted that the Preliminary Objection was founded upon an erroneous appreciation of both the facts and the law. The Learned Counsel argued that the parties named in the appeal were the same parties who participated in the proceedings before the sub - ordinate court and that the allegation that the Appellant improperly introduced a new party into the appeal was factually incorrect. It was further submitted that this Court was clothed with appellate jurisdiction under the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011. Therefore had the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals arising from sub - ordinate courts exercising jurisdiction in land matters.
15. The Learned Counsel further submitted that the issue of service raised by the 1 st Respondent/Applicant was equally without merit. It was argued that the Appellant/Respondent had demonstrated, through the Replying Affidavit and the annexed affidavits of service, that the Memorandum of Appeal was duly served upon the Respondents shortly after it was filed, while the subsequent delay in serving the Record of Appeal had been sufficiently explained and disclosed to the Court. Therefore, the Counsel contended that the allegation by the 1 st Respondent/Applicant that she only became aware of the appeal on 9 th February, 2026 was unsupported by the evidence and could not form the basis for striking out the appeal.
16. In support of the foregoing submissions, the Learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of:- “ Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat – Versus – Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others [2014] eKLR”, where the Court emphasized that procedural rules were intended to facilitate rather than obstruct substantive justice and that appeals ought not to be struck out merely on account of procedural lapses unless there was demonstrated inordinate delay or abuse of the court process. The Learned Counsel submitted that the present appeal does not disclose any such inordinate delay or abuse, and that the Respondents had failed to demonstrate any prejudice arising from the manner in which the appeal has been prosecuted.
17. The Learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision in the case of:- “Samuel Kamau Macharia – Versus – Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 Others [2012] eKLR”, submitting that the overriding objective embodied under the provision of Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 obliges courts to administer justice in a manner that advances substantive justice and discourages undue reliance on technical objections where no prejudice has been occasioned to the opposite party.
18. Further reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court decision in “ Raila Amolo Odinga & Another – Versus – Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 Others [2017] eKLR”, wherein the Court reiterated that Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution commands courts to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities. The Counsel averred that striking out the present appeal on the grounds advanced by the 1 st Respondent/Applicant would amount to elevating procedural technicalities above the constitutional imperative of substantive justice.
19. On whether the appeal ought to be heard on its merits. The Learned Counsel submitted that the Memorandum of Appeal raised substantial and arguable questions deserving appellate consideration. The Learned Counsel identified, among the issues raised, whether the learned trial Magistrate properly exercised her discretion in directing the cross-examination of the Appellant/Respondent and another deponent at an interlocutory stage; whether the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that the principal issue before the subordinate court concerned the legality of the ex parte Judgment; and whether the impugned orders unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings before the trial court. Therefore, the Counsel urged this Court to find that the appeal raised bona fide and arguable issues which ought to be determined on their merits rather than being summarily terminated through procedural objections.
20. In conclusion, Learned Counsel held that both the Preliminary Objection and the Notice of Motion application were devoid of merit and constituted an attempt to shield the impugned ruling from appellate scrutiny. Thus, he urged the Court to dismiss these pleadings with costs and direct that the appeal proceeds to hearing on a priority basis.
VI. Analysis and Determination
21. I have carefully considered the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 9 th February, 2026, the Notice of Motion application dated 17 th April, 2026, the grounds set out therein, the Supporting Affidavit sworn by the 1 st Respondent, the Replying Affidavit sworn by the Appellant together with the annexures thereto, the written submissions filed by the Appellant, the authorities cited and the applicable constitutional, statutory and decisional law.
22. Having done so, I am of the considered view that the following issues arise for determination:
a) Whether the Preliminary Objection dated 9 th February, 2026 raises pure points of law capable of disposing of the appeal in limine and, in particular, whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
b) Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 17 th April, 2026 seeking to strike out the Memorandum of Appeal and dismiss the appeal has met the legal threshold for the grant of the orders sought.
c) Who should bear the costs of the Preliminary Objection and the Notice of Motion application.
ISSUE No. a) Whether the Preliminary Objection dated 9 th February, 2026 raises pure points of law capable of disposing of the appeal in limine and, in particular, whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
23. Under this Sub – heading, the Honourable Court notes that the main substratum of the matter is a preliminary objection by the Objector to the whole suit. For this reason, in determining this instant Notice of Preliminary Objection, the Court will first consider what amounts to a Preliminary Objection and then Juxtapose the said description herein and come up with a finding on whether what has been raised herein fits the said description.
24. According to the Black Law Dictionary “ a preliminary objection” is defined as:
In case before the tribunal, an objection that if upheld, would render further proceeding before the tribunal impossible or unnecessary…….”
25. At the very initial stages of build our jurisprudence, this legal concept was well extrapolated in the now famous case of “ Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co Limited – Versus - West End Distributors Limited (1969) EA 696” described a preliminary objection as hereunder:-
'So far as I am aware, a Preliminary Objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings, and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. Examples are an objection to the jurisdiction of the court or a plea of limitation, or a submission that the parties are bound by the contract giving rise to the suit to refer the dispute to arbitration.'
Sir Charles Newbold, JA in the same case stated that: -
'A Preliminary Objection is in the nature of what used to be a demurrer. It raises a pure point of law which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact had to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion. The improper raising of points by way of Preliminary Objection does not nothing but unnecessarily increase costs and, on occasion, confuse the issue. The improper practice should stop.'
26. Additionally, in the case of: “ Nitin Properties Limited – Versus - Singh Kalsi & Another [1995] eKLR” the Court stated thus:-
'A Preliminary Objection raises a pure point of law, which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion. '
27. Similarly, the Tanzanian Court of Appeal sitting in Dar es Salaam, in the case of:- “ Karata Ernest & others vs Attorney General (Civil Revision No 10 of 2020) [2010] TZCA 30 (29 December 2010)”, (Luanda, JA, Ramadhani, CJ, Rutakangwa, JJA), expounded the issue of preliminary objections in a more exhaustive manner as follows: -
“At the outset we showed that it is trite law that a point of preliminary objection cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained in the course of deciding it. It only "consists o f a point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by dear implication out of the pleading obvious examples include: objection to the jurisdiction of the court; a plea of limitation; when the court has been wrongly moved either by non-citation or wrong citation of the enabling provisions of the law; where an appeal is lodged when there is no right of appeal; where an appeal is instituted without a valid notice of appeal or without leave or a certificate where one is statutorily required; where the appeal is supported by a patently incurably defective copy of the decree appealed from; etc. All these are clear pure points of law. All the same, where a taken point of objection is premised on issues of mixed facts and law that point does not deserve consideration at all as a preliminary point of objection. It ought to be argued in the "normal manner" when deliberating on the merits or otherwise of the concerned legal proceedings. ’
28. The Supreme Court addressed its mind on this issue in the case of “ Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya – Versus - Kenya Airways Limited & 3 Others [2015] eKLR” and stated:
“Thus, a Preliminary Objection may only be raised on a ‘pure question of law’. To discern such a point of law, the Court has to be satisfied that there is no proper contest as to the facts.”
29. Therefore, from the above holdings of the Courts, it is clear that a preliminary Objection must be raised on a pure point of law and no fact should be ascertained from elsewhere. See also the case of “ In the matter of Siaya Resident Magistrate Court Kisumu HCCMisc. App No. 247 of 2003” where the Court held that:-
“A Preliminary Objection cannot be raised if any facts has to be ascertained.”
30. I have further relied on the decision of “Attorney General & Another – Versus - Andrew Mwaura Githinji & another [2016] eKLR”: - as it explicitly extrapolates in a more concise and surgical precision what tantamount to the scope, nature and meaning of a Preliminary Objection inter alia: -
( i) A Preliminary Objection raised a pure point of law which is argued on the assumptions that all facts pleaded by other side are correct.
(ii) A Preliminary Objection cannot be raised if any fact held to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion; and
(iii) The improper raise of points by way of preliminary objection does nothing but unnecessary increase of costs and on occasion confuse issues in dispute.
31. In the present matter, the Preliminary Objection is anchored upon three principal grounds. These are namely that:-
i. the Appellant/Respondent improperly joined a party who was not before the trial court;
ii. the Memorandum of Appeal was never served upon the Respondents; and
iii. consequently no valid appeal exists capable of being entertained by this Court.
32. The first limb of the objection challenges the jurisdiction of this Court on the basis that the Chief Land Registrar was allegedly introduced into the appeal without leave. Jurisdiction is undoubtedly a pure question of law and whenever raised, a court is under an obligation to determine it at the earliest opportunity. This principle was firmly settled in the decision of the Court of Appeal in the now famous case of: “Owners of Motor Vessel “Lilian S” – Versus - Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited (1989) IKLR” dealt with a court, jurisdiction thus: -
“Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no powers to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction there would be no basis for a continuation of the proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law downs its tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion it is without jurisdiction…………where a court takes it upon itself to exercise jurisdiction which it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing. Jurisdiction must be acquired before Judgement is given”.
16. Additionally, still on the same point, in the case of “County Government of Migori – Versus - I N B Management IT Consultant Limited (2019) eKLR” whereby court being faced with an objection regarding jurisdiction, analyzed the law and observed as follows: -
“10- The jurisdiction point raised by the Respondent herein clearly meets the foregone criteria being a pure point of law. That jurisdiction is everything is a well settled principle in law. My Lordship Ibrahim, JSC in Supreme court of Kenya Civil application No 11 of 2016- “Hon (Lady) Justice Kalpana H Rawal – Versus - Judicial Service Commission and others when in demystifying jurisdiction quoted from the decision in Supreme court of Nigeria supreme case No 11 of 2012- “Ocheja Immanuel Dangama – Versus - Hon. Atoi Aidoko Aliaswan and 4 others where Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, JSC and expressed himself as follows; -
“......it is settled that jurisdiction is the life blood of any adjudication because a court or tribunal without jurisdiction is like an animal without blood, which means it is dead. A decision by a court or tribunal without requisite jurisdiction is a nullity dead on arrival and of no legal effect whatever that is why an issue of jurisdiction is granted and fundamental in adjudication and has to be dealt with first and foremost.....”
33. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal stated in the case of:- “ Nakuru Civil Appeal No. 119 of 2017 Public Service Commission & 2 Others – Versus - Eric Cheruiyot & 16 Others consolidated with Civil Appeal No. 139 of 2017 County Government of Embu & Another – Versus - Eric Cheruiyot & 15 Others (unreported)” in a decision rendered on 8 th February, 2022 expressed itself on the doctrine of jurisdiction in general as follows:
“Jurisdiction is everything, it is what gives a court or a tribunal the power, authority and legitimacy to entertain a matter before it. John Beecroft Saunders in “Words and Phrases Legally Defined”, Volum
[...truncated]
1. Before this Court for its determination are two ( 2 ) interlocutory pleadings arising in the present appeal, namely:
i. the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 9 th February, 2026 lodged by the 1 st Respondent/Applicant; and
ii. the Notice of Motion application dated 17 th April, 2026 by SAUMU ABDALLA NIMATIKO (Suing of her own accord and as Legal Representative of the Estate of HAMISI MWABARUA the 1 st Respondent seeking, principally, the striking out of the Memorandum of Appeal and the dismissal of the appeal in limine.
2. The impugned application is premised upon the contention that the appeal before this Court is incompetent for want of proper service of the Memorandum of Appeal upon the Respondents, improper joinder of parties and alleged want of jurisdiction on the part of this Court to entertain the appeal. According to the 1 st Respondent/Applicant, these defects were fundamental and render the appeal incurably defective and incapable of being sustained in law.
3. Upon service, the Appellant/Respondent opposed both the Preliminary Objection and the application through filing of a Replying Affidavit sworn by John Kaggia Kariuki and dated 30 th April, 2026 , together with a detailed written submissions. The Appellant/Respondent maintained that the Memorandum of Appeal was duly served shortly after filing, that the Record of Appeal was served immediately after certified proceedings became available. That the issues raised by the Respondent were either factual disputes incapable of determination through a Preliminary Objection or procedural matters curable under the provision of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution and the Overriding Objective provisions of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21.
II. The Notice of Preliminary Objection by the 1 st Respondent
4. The Preliminary objection was based on the following aspects that:
a). The Honourable Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to entertain the instant Cause/Proceedings, on account of the express mandatory provisions of Sections 5, Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21, Laws of Kenya as read with Sections 13 and 16, Environment & Land Court Act, Cap. 8D and Order 42 Rule 12, Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, Laws of Kenya, in that:
i. The Appellant/Respondent had unprocedurally joined into the Appeal a Party that had never been a Party to the Primary Suit, without leave of Court;
ii. The Appellant/Respondent had never served any Memorandum of Appeal upon the 1 st Respondent/Applicant and/or Counsel on record, whether within the express, mandatory timelines stipulated by Law or at all.
iii. There existed no valid appeal capable of determination by the Court.
5. Therefore, the 1 st Respondent/Applicant sought for:
i. Summary Dismissal of the Appellant’s entire Suit/Cause/Appeal herein, with Costs to the 1 st Respondent.
III. The Notice of Motion application dated 17 th April, 2026 by the 1 st Respondent/Applicant
6. The 1 st Respondent/Applicant further filed a Notice of Motion Application dated 17 th April, 2026 and sought for the following prayers:-
a) That the Honourable Court be Pleased to strike out the Memorandum Of Appeal lodged herein on 25 th September, 2025.:
b) JOHN KAGGIA KARIUKI
c) JOHN MWAURA NDUNG’U
i. to attend Court physically on a date to be determined by the Honourable Court for purposes of Cross-examination as regards the contents of their Affidavits sworn herein on 21 st February, 2025 (Paragraphs 2-17 and 2-9, respectively, together with all respective annexures thereto).
d) THAT consequently, the Honourable Court be Pleased to dismiss the Appeal subject hereof initiated by way of Memorandum Of Appeal lodged herein on 25 th September, 2025.
e) THAT the Costs of this Application be provided for.
7. The application is premised upon the grounds appearing on its face, testimonial facts and the averment made out under the Supporting Affidavit of SAUMU ABDALLA NIMATIKO, the 1 st Respondent/Applicant herein, sworn on 17the April 2026. In summary, he averred as follows:-
a) She instituted the civil case “ Kwale CM ELC No. E035 of 2022” against the Appellant and the Land Registrar, Kwale, seeking declaratory, injunctive and consequential orders over Land Parcel No. KWALE/DIANI SETTLEMENT SCHEME/83 (Hereinafter referred to as “The Suit Land”).
b) On 7 th June, 2024, the sub - ordinate court entered Judgment in her favour.
c) Thereafter, being aggrieved, the Appellant/Respondent filed an application dated 21 st February, 2025 seeking to set aside the Judgment.
d) By a ruling delivered on 3 rd September, 2025, the trial court allowed her application dated 7 th April, 2025 directing that the Appellant/Respondent, John Kaggia Kariuki, and one John Mwaura Ndung'u attend court for purposes of cross-examination on the contents of their respective affidavits.
e) Dissatisfied with that interlocutory ruling, the Appellant lodged the present appeal.
f) The appeal was incompetent and liable to be struck out for failure to comply with mandatory procedural requirements.
g) The Memorandum of Appeal was lodged on 25 th September, 2025, but neither she nor her advocates on record were ever served with the Memorandum of Appeal within the timelines prescribed by law or at all.
h) Despite of the institution of the appeal, the Appellant/Respondent took no steps to notify her of the proceedings and deliberately proceeded without effecting service upon the parties entitled to participate in the appeal.
i) Therefore, the appeal remained incompetent from its inception and incapable of being sustained in law.
j) It was only on 9 th February, 2026, while counsel for the 1 st Respondent/Applicant was physically present before this Court in connection with another matter, that he fortuitously became aware of the existence of the present appeal.
k) Upon perusing the court file, the Counsel allegedly discovered that the Appellant had never served the Memorandum of Appeal or any other pleadings upon the 1 st Respondent/Applicant nor her advocates.
l) That omission constituted a deliberate violation of the mandatory provisions governing appellate procedure and denied her the opportunity to participate in the proceedings from the outset.
m) The Appellant/Respondent improperly introduced the Chief Land Registrar, Nairobi, as a party to the appeal notwithstanding that the proceedings before the sub - ordinate court had been conducted against the Land Registrar, Kwale.
n) The Chief Land Registrar had never been a party to the proceedings before the trial court and that the Appellant/Respondent neither sought nor obtained leave of the Court before introducing a new party at the appellate stage.
o) Therefore the appeal offended the provisions governing appellate jurisdiction and was fatally defective.
p) By reason of the Appellant/Respondent's failure to effect service of the Memorandum of Appeal and the improper joinder of a party who never participated in the sub - ordinate court proceedings, there existed no valid appeal capable of being heard and determined by this Court.
q) Thus, the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appeal in its present form and that the only appropriate remedy was to strike out the Memorandum of Appeal and dismiss the appeal in limine.
r) The impugned appeal was brought solely for the purpose of delaying the implementation of the ruling delivered on 3 rd September, 2025 and frustrating the expeditious conclusion of the proceedings pending before the sub - ordinate court.
s) The Appellant had persistently employed procedural manoeuvres to delay the hearing of the dispute while continuing to enjoy the benefit of the orders issued by the trial court.
t) In conclusion, the defects complained of were not mere procedural technicalities capable of being cured under the provision of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, but fundamental breaches of mandatory legal provisions governing the institution and prosecution of appeals.
u) Therefore, she urged the Court to allow the Notice of Motion as prayed, strike out the Memorandum of Appeal dated 25 th September, 2025, dismiss the appeal with costs and uphold the integrity of the appellate process.
IV. The responses by the Appellant/Respondent
8. As indicated hereinabove, the Appellant/Respondent opposed both the Notice of Preliminary Objection and the Notice of Motion through his Replying Affidavit sworn at Nairobi on 30 th April, 2026. He deposed as follows that:
a) He had read and fully understood the Notice of Motion application dated 17 th April, 2026 together with the Supporting Affidavit sworn by the 1 st Respondent/Applicant.
b) He categorically opposed the application in its entirety. He averred that the allegations contained in the Supporting Affidavit were false, misleading and deliberately calculated to mislead this Honourable Court.
c) The present Appeal was competently instituted on 25 th September, 2025, well within the statutory period of thirty (30) days prescribed for lodging appeals from sub - ordinate courts.
d) Following the delivery of the impugned ruling by the Learned Principal Magistrate in the civil case of:- “Kwale MCELC No. E035 of 2022” on 3 rd September, 2025. He annexed an extract of the Case Tracking System (CTS) activities marked as “JK-1” to demonstrate that the appeal was lodged within time.
e) Immediately after filing the Memorandum of Appeal, he caused it to be duly served upon the 1 st Respondent/Applicant and her Advocates, the Law firm of M/s. Ngonze & Ngonze Advocates on 26 th September, 2025, being one day after the appeal had been lodged.
f) Therefore, he maintained that the 1 st Respondent/Applicant's allegation that the Memorandum of Appeal was never served was entirely false and unsupported by the factual record.
g) The Record of Appeal was subsequently served upon the 1 st Respondent/Applicant's advocates on 3 rd February, 2026 and upon the 1 st Respondent/Applicant on 10 th February, 2026.
h) During the interval between the filing of the Memorandum of Appeal and the service of the Record of Appeal was occasioned solely by the time taken to obtain certified proceedings and copies of the lower court record.
i) According to the Appellant, this delay was fully disclosed to the Court during the mention held on 28 th October, 2025, whereupon leave was granted to file the Record of Appeal upon receipt of the certified proceedings.
j) In support thereof, he annexed a copy of the Affidavit of Service dated 13 th February, 2026, marked as “JK-2.”
k) The 1 st Respondent/Applicant's advocates had, at all material times, been aware of the existence and pendency of the appeal since September, 2025, and that their contention that they only became aware of the proceedings on 9 th February, 2026 was false, misleading and an afterthought calculated to create a basis for the striking out of the appeal.
l) He maintained that the chronology of service and the documents filed before the Court clearly disproved the Respondent's allegations.
m) In any event, both Respondents had by then been served with all the requisite pleadings relating to the appeal and had actively participated in the proceedings by filing the present Preliminary Objection, the Notice of Motion application and written submissions.
n) The Respondents had failed to demonstrate any prejudice whatsoever arising from the alleged delay in service, if any, and that no miscarriage of justice had been occasioned to them.
o) The instant application was nothing more than a deliberate attempt to avoid a determination of the appeal on its merits.
p) The appeal raised substantial and arguable issues concerning the propriety and legality of the ruling delivered by the Learned Principal Magistrate on 3 rd September, 2025, particularly the order directing the cross-examination of the Appellant and another deponent before the determination of the application to set aside the Judgment.
q) Those issues deserved to be heard and determined on their merits rather than being defeated through procedural objections.
r) In conclusion, it would be in the interests of justice, fairness and the overriding objective of the Court for the appeal to proceed to full hearing and determination on its merits.
s) He accordingly urged the Court to dismiss both the Preliminary Objection and the Notice of Motion with costs and to issue appropriate directions for the expeditious hearing of the appeal.
V. Submissions by the Parties
9. On 21 st April, 2026, this Honourable Court directed that both the Preliminary Objection and the Notice of Motion application be canvassed by way of written submissions. By the time of penning down this ruling, only the Appellant/Respondent had complied with the directions of the Court by filing his written submissions dated 17 th June, 2026. On accessing from both the Judiciary CTS Portal nor the ELC Registry, there was no written submission on record filed on behalf of the 1 st Respondent/Applicant.
10. Consequently, this Court shall determine the Preliminary Objection and the Notice of Motion on the basis of the pleadings, affidavits, the applicable law and the Appellant/Respondent's written submissions.
A. The Written Submissions by the Appellant/Respondent
11. The Learned Counsel for the Appellant/Respondent commenced the submissions by setting out the factual background giving rise to the present appeal. Mr. Nyamwaro Advocate submitted that the dispute revolved around the suit land, which was the subject of Kwale CMELC No. E035 of 2022. The Learned Counsel submitted that following the delivery of the ex - parte Judgment on 7 th June, 2024, the Appellant/Respondent unsuccessfully sought to set aside through an application dated 21 st February, 2025. Thereafter, the trial Court, vide its ruling delivered on 3 rd September, 2025, allowed the 1 st Respondent/Applicant's application seeking leave to cross-examine the Appellant/Respondent and another deponent, prompting the present appeal.
12. The Learned Counsel averred that after the impugned ruling, the Appellant/Respondent lodged the Memorandum of Appeal within the prescribed statutory period and subsequently filed the Record of Appeal upon obtaining certified proceedings from the sub - ordinate court. It was the contention by the Counsel that the Memorandum of Appeal was served upon the Respondents on 26 th September, 2025, whereas the Record of Appeal was served upon the 1 st and 2 nd Respondents on 3 rd February, 2026 and 10 th February, 2026, respectively. It was submitted that the delay in serving the Record of Appeal was fully explained to the Court during the mention held on 28 th October, 2025, and arose solely from the delay in obtaining certified proceedings from the lower court.
13. The Learned Counsel identified three principal issues for determination, namely: whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal as alleged in the Preliminary Objection; whether the Memorandum of Appeal and the Record of Appeal were properly served upon the Respondents; and whether the appeal ought to proceed to hearing and determination on its merits.
14. On the question of jurisdiction. The Counsel submitted that the Preliminary Objection was founded upon an erroneous appreciation of both the facts and the law. The Learned Counsel argued that the parties named in the appeal were the same parties who participated in the proceedings before the sub - ordinate court and that the allegation that the Appellant improperly introduced a new party into the appeal was factually incorrect. It was further submitted that this Court was clothed with appellate jurisdiction under the provisions of Sections 12 and 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011. Therefore had the requisite jurisdiction to hear and determine appeals arising from sub - ordinate courts exercising jurisdiction in land matters.
15. The Learned Counsel further submitted that the issue of service raised by the 1 st Respondent/Applicant was equally without merit. It was argued that the Appellant/Respondent had demonstrated, through the Replying Affidavit and the annexed affidavits of service, that the Memorandum of Appeal was duly served upon the Respondents shortly after it was filed, while the subsequent delay in serving the Record of Appeal had been sufficiently explained and disclosed to the Court. Therefore, the Counsel contended that the allegation by the 1 st Respondent/Applicant that she only became aware of the appeal on 9 th February, 2026 was unsupported by the evidence and could not form the basis for striking out the appeal.
16. In support of the foregoing submissions, the Learned Counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of:- “ Nicholas Kiptoo Arap Korir Salat – Versus – Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 7 Others [2014] eKLR”, where the Court emphasized that procedural rules were intended to facilitate rather than obstruct substantive justice and that appeals ought not to be struck out merely on account of procedural lapses unless there was demonstrated inordinate delay or abuse of the court process. The Learned Counsel submitted that the present appeal does not disclose any such inordinate delay or abuse, and that the Respondents had failed to demonstrate any prejudice arising from the manner in which the appeal has been prosecuted.
17. The Learned Counsel also placed reliance on the decision in the case of:- “Samuel Kamau Macharia – Versus – Kenya Commercial Bank Limited & 2 Others [2012] eKLR”, submitting that the overriding objective embodied under the provision of Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 obliges courts to administer justice in a manner that advances substantive justice and discourages undue reliance on technical objections where no prejudice has been occasioned to the opposite party.
18. Further reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court decision in “ Raila Amolo Odinga & Another – Versus – Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 Others [2017] eKLR”, wherein the Court reiterated that Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution commands courts to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities. The Counsel averred that striking out the present appeal on the grounds advanced by the 1 st Respondent/Applicant would amount to elevating procedural technicalities above the constitutional imperative of substantive justice.
19. On whether the appeal ought to be heard on its merits. The Learned Counsel submitted that the Memorandum of Appeal raised substantial and arguable questions deserving appellate consideration. The Learned Counsel identified, among the issues raised, whether the learned trial Magistrate properly exercised her discretion in directing the cross-examination of the Appellant/Respondent and another deponent at an interlocutory stage; whether the learned Magistrate failed to appreciate that the principal issue before the subordinate court concerned the legality of the ex parte Judgment; and whether the impugned orders unnecessarily prolonged the proceedings before the trial court. Therefore, the Counsel urged this Court to find that the appeal raised bona fide and arguable issues which ought to be determined on their merits rather than being summarily terminated through procedural objections.
20. In conclusion, Learned Counsel held that both the Preliminary Objection and the Notice of Motion application were devoid of merit and constituted an attempt to shield the impugned ruling from appellate scrutiny. Thus, he urged the Court to dismiss these pleadings with costs and direct that the appeal proceeds to hearing on a priority basis.
VI. Analysis and Determination
21. I have carefully considered the Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 9 th February, 2026, the Notice of Motion application dated 17 th April, 2026, the grounds set out therein, the Supporting Affidavit sworn by the 1 st Respondent, the Replying Affidavit sworn by the Appellant together with the annexures thereto, the written submissions filed by the Appellant, the authorities cited and the applicable constitutional, statutory and decisional law.
22. Having done so, I am of the considered view that the following issues arise for determination:
a) Whether the Preliminary Objection dated 9 th February, 2026 raises pure points of law capable of disposing of the appeal in limine and, in particular, whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
b) Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 17 th April, 2026 seeking to strike out the Memorandum of Appeal and dismiss the appeal has met the legal threshold for the grant of the orders sought.
c) Who should bear the costs of the Preliminary Objection and the Notice of Motion application.
ISSUE No. a) Whether the Preliminary Objection dated 9 th February, 2026 raises pure points of law capable of disposing of the appeal in limine and, in particular, whether this Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain the appeal.
23. Under this Sub – heading, the Honourable Court notes that the main substratum of the matter is a preliminary objection by the Objector to the whole suit. For this reason, in determining this instant Notice of Preliminary Objection, the Court will first consider what amounts to a Preliminary Objection and then Juxtapose the said description herein and come up with a finding on whether what has been raised herein fits the said description.
24. According to the Black Law Dictionary “ a preliminary objection” is defined as:
In case before the tribunal, an objection that if upheld, would render further proceeding before the tribunal impossible or unnecessary…….”
25. At the very initial stages of build our jurisprudence, this legal concept was well extrapolated in the now famous case of “ Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co Limited – Versus - West End Distributors Limited (1969) EA 696” described a preliminary objection as hereunder:-
'So far as I am aware, a Preliminary Objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings, and which if argued as a preliminary point may dispose of the suit. Examples are an objection to the jurisdiction of the court or a plea of limitation, or a submission that the parties are bound by the contract giving rise to the suit to refer the dispute to arbitration.'
Sir Charles Newbold, JA in the same case stated that: -
'A Preliminary Objection is in the nature of what used to be a demurrer. It raises a pure point of law which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact had to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion. The improper raising of points by way of Preliminary Objection does not nothing but unnecessarily increase costs and, on occasion, confuse the issue. The improper practice should stop.'
26. Additionally, in the case of: “ Nitin Properties Limited – Versus - Singh Kalsi & Another [1995] eKLR” the Court stated thus:-
'A Preliminary Objection raises a pure point of law, which is argued on the assumption that all the facts pleaded by the other side are correct. It cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion. '
27. Similarly, the Tanzanian Court of Appeal sitting in Dar es Salaam, in the case of:- “ Karata Ernest & others vs Attorney General (Civil Revision No 10 of 2020) [2010] TZCA 30 (29 December 2010)”, (Luanda, JA, Ramadhani, CJ, Rutakangwa, JJA), expounded the issue of preliminary objections in a more exhaustive manner as follows: -
“At the outset we showed that it is trite law that a point of preliminary objection cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained in the course of deciding it. It only "consists o f a point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by dear implication out of the pleading obvious examples include: objection to the jurisdiction of the court; a plea of limitation; when the court has been wrongly moved either by non-citation or wrong citation of the enabling provisions of the law; where an appeal is lodged when there is no right of appeal; where an appeal is instituted without a valid notice of appeal or without leave or a certificate where one is statutorily required; where the appeal is supported by a patently incurably defective copy of the decree appealed from; etc. All these are clear pure points of law. All the same, where a taken point of objection is premised on issues of mixed facts and law that point does not deserve consideration at all as a preliminary point of objection. It ought to be argued in the "normal manner" when deliberating on the merits or otherwise of the concerned legal proceedings. ’
28. The Supreme Court addressed its mind on this issue in the case of “ Aviation & Allied Workers Union Kenya – Versus - Kenya Airways Limited & 3 Others [2015] eKLR” and stated:
“Thus, a Preliminary Objection may only be raised on a ‘pure question of law’. To discern such a point of law, the Court has to be satisfied that there is no proper contest as to the facts.”
29. Therefore, from the above holdings of the Courts, it is clear that a preliminary Objection must be raised on a pure point of law and no fact should be ascertained from elsewhere. See also the case of “ In the matter of Siaya Resident Magistrate Court Kisumu HCCMisc. App No. 247 of 2003” where the Court held that:-
“A Preliminary Objection cannot be raised if any facts has to be ascertained.”
30. I have further relied on the decision of “Attorney General & Another – Versus - Andrew Mwaura Githinji & another [2016] eKLR”: - as it explicitly extrapolates in a more concise and surgical precision what tantamount to the scope, nature and meaning of a Preliminary Objection inter alia: -
( i) A Preliminary Objection raised a pure point of law which is argued on the assumptions that all facts pleaded by other side are correct.
(ii) A Preliminary Objection cannot be raised if any fact held to be ascertained or if what is sought is the exercise of judicial discretion; and
(iii) The improper raise of points by way of preliminary objection does nothing but unnecessary increase of costs and on occasion confuse issues in dispute.
31. In the present matter, the Preliminary Objection is anchored upon three principal grounds. These are namely that:-
i. the Appellant/Respondent improperly joined a party who was not before the trial court;
ii. the Memorandum of Appeal was never served upon the Respondents; and
iii. consequently no valid appeal exists capable of being entertained by this Court.
32. The first limb of the objection challenges the jurisdiction of this Court on the basis that the Chief Land Registrar was allegedly introduced into the appeal without leave. Jurisdiction is undoubtedly a pure question of law and whenever raised, a court is under an obligation to determine it at the earliest opportunity. This principle was firmly settled in the decision of the Court of Appeal in the now famous case of: “Owners of Motor Vessel “Lilian S” – Versus - Caltex Oil (Kenya) Limited (1989) IKLR” dealt with a court, jurisdiction thus: -
“Jurisdiction is everything. Without it, a court has no powers to make one more step. Where a court has no jurisdiction there would be no basis for a continuation of the proceedings pending other evidence. A court of law downs its tools in respect of the matter before it the moment it holds the opinion it is without jurisdiction…………where a court takes it upon itself to exercise jurisdiction which it does not possess, its decision amounts to nothing. Jurisdiction must be acquired before Judgement is given”.
16. Additionally, still on the same point, in the case of “County Government of Migori – Versus - I N B Management IT Consultant Limited (2019) eKLR” whereby court being faced with an objection regarding jurisdiction, analyzed the law and observed as follows: -
“10- The jurisdiction point raised by the Respondent herein clearly meets the foregone criteria being a pure point of law. That jurisdiction is everything is a well settled principle in law. My Lordship Ibrahim, JSC in Supreme court of Kenya Civil application No 11 of 2016- “Hon (Lady) Justice Kalpana H Rawal – Versus - Judicial Service Commission and others when in demystifying jurisdiction quoted from the decision in Supreme court of Nigeria supreme case No 11 of 2012- “Ocheja Immanuel Dangama – Versus - Hon. Atoi Aidoko Aliaswan and 4 others where Walter Samuel Nkanu Onnoghen, JSC and expressed himself as follows; -
“......it is settled that jurisdiction is the life blood of any adjudication because a court or tribunal without jurisdiction is like an animal without blood, which means it is dead. A decision by a court or tribunal without requisite jurisdiction is a nullity dead on arrival and of no legal effect whatever that is why an issue of jurisdiction is granted and fundamental in adjudication and has to be dealt with first and foremost.....”
33. Furthermore, the Court of Appeal stated in the case of:- “ Nakuru Civil Appeal No. 119 of 2017 Public Service Commission & 2 Others – Versus - Eric Cheruiyot & 16 Others consolidated with Civil Appeal No. 139 of 2017 County Government of Embu & Another – Versus - Eric Cheruiyot & 15 Others (unreported)” in a decision rendered on 8 th February, 2022 expressed itself on the doctrine of jurisdiction in general as follows:
“Jurisdiction is everything, it is what gives a court or a tribunal the power, authority and legitimacy to entertain a matter before it. John Beecroft Saunders in “Words and Phrases Legally Defined”, Volum
[...truncated]