Wesley Kibii Arap Ruto & 3 others v Paraminder Singh & another [2015] KEELC 146 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court dismissed KANU members' land suit because the party no longer owned the Kericho property and the wrong parties were sued.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Res judicata
Res judicata not established; the defendant failed to annex the pleadings of Kericho HCCC No. 77 of 2013, and the matters and prayers in the two suits are different
The applicant annexed only a consent order, not the pleadings of the former suit, so the court could not compare the disputes. From the limited material, the earlier suit sought to stop the sale of the property and was compromised, paving way for transfer to Simbagate Holdings Limited. The present suit seeks a permanent injunction; the matters pleaded and the prayers differ, so the doctrine does not apply.
Jurisdiction of the Political Parties Disputes Tribunal under Section 40 of the Political Parties Act
The objection fails; the dispute is not purely between a member and the party since it also involves the 1st defendant, who was not shown to be a KANU member and cannot be subjected to the tribunal's jurisdiction
Section 40(1)(b) covers disputes between a member of a political party and the party. However, this suit also involves the 1st defendant, a non-member, so the whole dispute cannot be referred to the tribunal. A dispute that cannot wholly fall within the tribunal's jurisdiction is not barred by Section 40(2).
Internal dispute resolution under Article 21 of the KANU Constitution
Article 21 does not apply; the dispute is not electoral and involves a non-member who cannot be bound by the KANU constitution's machinery
Article 21(1) requires exhaustion of internal machinery before resorting to court. Electoral disputes go to the Elections Appeals Tribunal and other disputes to arbitration. This dispute concerns disposal of land, not elections, and involves the 1st defendant, a non-member, so the internal mechanism cannot capture it.
Cause of action / frivolous and vexatious suit
The suit discloses no cause of action and is frivolous and vexatious; it is dismissed with costs
KANU is no longer the registered proprietor; the property belongs to Simbagate Holdings Limited, which was not sued and against whom no fraud is alleged. The 1st defendant is not the registered proprietor either. The 2nd defendant, the National Executive Council of KANU, lacks legal capacity to be sued since the proper defendant is KANU itself as a body corporate under Section 16 of the Political Parties Act.
Legal principles established
#- A party asserting res judicata must annex the pleadings of the previous suit to demonstrate similarity of matters in issue
- The Political Parties Disputes Tribunal's jurisdiction under Section 40 of the Political Parties Act cannot capture a dispute involving a non-member of the political party
- A political party registered under the Political Parties Act is a body corporate capable of suing and being sued in its own name, and organs such as the National Executive Council lack capacity to be sued
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the suit to the defendants
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over a dispute concerning land; application under Section 17 Rule 5, Order 50 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Wesley Kibii Arap Ruto & 3 others v Paraminder Singh & another [2015] KEELC 146 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2015). Kericho Environment & Land Court Civil Suit (plaint filed 5 March 2015). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2015/146/eng@2015-10-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.