1.Before this court is a preliminary objection dated October 12, 2021on grounds that:i)This court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit because it is not vested with the jurisdiction to hear and determine land dispute and thus the suit is inconsistent with the provisions of section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act No. 11 of 2011.ii)The suit is incompetent, being inconsistent with the provisions of sections 15 of Civil Procedure Act.iii)The plaintiff lacks locus standi to institute civil proceedings on behalf of a deceased person without limited letters of administration ad litem.iv)The suit is fatally defective for lack of both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.
2.When the preliminary objection came up for hearing, the court directed that the same be canvased by way of written submissions of which, only the defendant complied with the said directions.
3.The defendant submitted that the plaintiff moved this court for injunctive relief to allegedly stop the defendant from evicting her from her home and for annulment of an agreement of sale of the suit property. That the plaintiff sold the suit property to the defendant with full disclosure of all material information pertaining to the property as the registered owner had passed on, thus the agreement was pending execution upon completion of a succession cause which was pending at the time of signing the sale agreement. The defendant submitted that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear and determine this suit since it is not vested with the jurisdiction. That this court lacks both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction as the suit land is worth Kshs. 10,000,000/= and further, the cause of action arose beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this court as the subject land is located within the jurisdiction of Wang’uru Law Courts while the defendant resides in Kerugoya where the sale agreement was signed. Reliance was placed on section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code. Further that, this court is not vested with the jurisdiction to hear and determine land disputes and as such, the suit is inconsistent with the provisions of section 13 of the Environment and Land ActNo. 11 of 2011 and equally article 162 of the constitution. Reliance was placed on the case of National Land Commission vs Afrison Export Import Limited & others  eKLR.
4.In regards to whether the plaintiff/applicant has locus to prosecute the suit herein, it was submitted that the plaintiff instituted the proceedings on behalf of her late husband without obtaining the requisite limited grant of letters of administration ad litem as required by law. Reliance was placed on rule 14 of the 5th Schedule to the LSA and on the cases of Elijah Chepkwony Chirchir v Joel Kipngeno Rop & 5 others  eKLR and Beatrice Wambui Kiarie v Beatrice Wambui & 9 others (2018). In the end, the defendant prayed that the suit be dismissed with costs to him.
5.I have considered the preliminary objection, and the submissions filed by the defendant herein.
6.It is important to note that, with the enactment of the Environment and Land Court Act of 2012, the jurisdiction to determine disputes relating to ownership and use of land is bestowed on the Environment and Land Court. It is my considered view as such that issues arising out of the instant application are not within the jurisdiction of this Honourable Court. [See the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Nasra Ibrahim Ibren v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 2 others Supreme Court Petition No 19 of 2018- paragraph 40).
8.From a reading of the above sections/articles, it is clear that the Constitution intended to create special courts with special jurisdiction in land matters. That jurisdiction is not therefore donated to the High Court.
9.Sections 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the Civil Procedure Act makes provision on the place of suing; in relation to this matter, section 12 provides as follows: -
10.Therefore, where the property is situate in a given county, the suit thus shall be instituted in the court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the property is situate.
11.The defendant has submitted that the cause of action arose beyond the territorial jurisdiction of this court given that the subject land is located within the jurisdiction of Wang’uru while the defendant resides in Kerugoya. In the same breadth, that the pecuniary value of the suit land is Kshs 10,000,000. Upon perusing the record and specifically the sale agreement in contention, I note that the property is situated in Embu County and more specifically LR Mbeere /wachoro/1356 and the amount of money the defendant paid for the suit land is Kshs 11,250,000.[See Magistrates Court Act No 26 of 2015; Paulo Anyanzwa Kutekha v Steel Structures Limited  eKLR].
12.In reference to the third ground that the plaintiff lacked locus standi to institute the suit herein on behalf of the deceased, as she had not taken out letter of administration in respect of the estate or an ad litem, in the case of Julian Adoyo & another vs Francis Kiberenge Bondeva (Supra), Mrima J discussed the importance of taking out the limited grant before instituting a suit and stated that;
14.I have perused the record of the court and it is clear that the plaintiff has not annexed a copy of grant letters of administration. It therefore follows that she has no locus standi to bring the suit herein.
15.In the end, I find that the suit herein is incompetent and the same is struck out with costs to the defendant.
16.It is so ordered.