Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (application dated 15 January 2016 in suit commenced by plaint filed 25 July 2006)· [2016] KEELC 264 (KLR)

Kenya Anti-Corruption Commision & another v Francis Zaasita Kiptoo Menjo and 36 others [2016] KEELC 264 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
15 March 2016
MSMunyao Sila
2,473 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Buying land that is caught up in someone else's court case does not automatically give you the right to join that case in Kenya.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru (Munyao Sila J) on an application dated 15 January 2016 by Sammy Njoroge Konye seeking to be enjoined as an interested party in a suit commenced by plaint on 25 July 2006 by the Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission against 37 defendants. The suit concerns five parcels of land originally registered in the name of the Rift Valley Development Trust Registered Trustees, which allegedly established the Rift Valley Institute of Science and Technology. The plaintiff alleges that the 1st defendant fraudulently consolidated three trust parcels into L.R No. 22771, which was subdivided and transferred through successive defendants down to individual purchasers, and seeks a declaration of fraud and cancellation of the resultant titles. The applicant claimed to have purchased one acre to be excised from LR No. 22771/8, registered in the name of the 6th defendant, and argued he would be condemned unheard if not joined. No party opposed the application, but the court held that non-opposition alone does not justify joinder. Relying on Order 1 Rule 10(2) and its own earlier decision in Skov Estate Ltd v ADC (2015), the court held that an interested party must show that his presence is necessary to settle the questions in the suit, or that he has a claim convenient to try alongside. The applicant holds no title in issue; his interest is contingent on the 6th defendant's title surviving, and his validity of purchase is not an issue in the litigation. Mere affection by the outcome is insufficient. The application was dismissed with no order as to costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a purchaser of a portion of land in issue is entitled to be enjoined as an interested party

Holding

Joinder is refused; the applicant holds no title in issue and his purchase is not a matter in the litigation, so his presence is unnecessary

Reasoning

The suit concerns whether the defendants' titles were fraudulently consolidated, subdivided and transferred, and whether they should be cancelled. The applicant's claim to one acre excised from LR No. 22771/8 depends on the 6th defendant's title surviving. His rights would only crystallise after the principal determination, and he could then pursue the 6th defendant. Being affected by the outcome does not make one a necessary party.

p. 4
02

Threshold for joinder of an interested party under Order 1 Rule 10(2)

Holding

The court applies its discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2), joining only persons whose presence is necessary for the court to effectually and completely adjudicate; the threshold should not be too low

Reasoning

There is no explicit provision for interested parties in the Civil Procedure Rules, so courts use Order 1 Rule 10(2). The applicant must show necessity, not a cursory interest, lest proceedings be burdened with spectators, adding costs, service burdens and judicial time. A claim of the applicant's own convenient to be tried alongside may also justify joinder.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A person seeking to be enjoined as an interested party must demonstrate that his presence is necessary for the adjudication of the matters before court, or that he has a claim convenient to be tried alongside the issues; a mere interest or the fact of being affected by the outcome is insufficient

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 15 January 2016 seeking to enjoin Sammy Njoroge Konye as interested party is dismissed
  2. 2.No orders as to costs, neither party having been keen to oppose the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • The Land (Perpetual Succession) ActCap 286 (now repealed)
  • now repealed
  • Registered Land Actnow repealed
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 Rule 10 (including 10(2))

Cases cited (1)

  • Skov Estate Ltd & Others vs Agriculture Development Corporation & Another
    (2015) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (discretion to add parties necessary for the court to effectually and completely adjudicate)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Anti-Corruption Commision & another v Francis Zaasita Kiptoo Menjo and 36 others [2016] KEELC 264 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). Not stated in the judgment (application dated 15 January 2016 in suit commenced by plaint filed 25 July 2006). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/264/eng@2016-03-15

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.