Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedELC Case (Machakos) – Application dated 19th December, 2016· [2017] KEELC 1812 (KLR)

Kenya African National Traders & Farmers Union v Florence Muoti Kioko & James Mulika Muindi (substituted as defendant in place of Agnes Mbithe Muindi – Deceased) & 18 others [2017] KEELC 1812 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
22 September 2017
OAO. A. Angote
2,079 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The court ruled on an application dated 19th December, 2016 by seventeen Interested Parties seeking to be enjoined in a suit in which the Plaintiff, Kenya African National Traders and Farmers Union, claimed 27 acres known as Mavoko Town Block 3/2056 (originally Plot No. 445, Lukenya Ranching and Farming Co-operative Society) by adverse possession, and seeking review and setting aside of a consent order of 19th December, 2014. Under the consent, the administrators of the estate of Agnes Mbithe Muindi were substituted as Defendants; the Plaintiff was to be registered as proprietor of 20 acres and Peter Muiruri Kiarie of the remaining 7 acres; the Plaintiff's caution was to be removed and the matter marked settled. The Interested Parties claimed they had purchased the same land in 2005 and had sued the Defendants in Nairobi ELC No. 225 of 2014, obtaining status quo orders, before the consent was recorded. The Plaintiff opposed, contending the consent was freely entered into, already executed and spent, and that the Applicants were neither necessary nor proper parties. The court held the Interested Parties were necessary parties under Order 1 Rule 10(2) since their claimed land was the same land claimed by the Plaintiff. It found it mischievous for the Defendants to have entered the consent while aware of the Interested Parties' claim, prejudicing that claim, and noted conflicting Letters of Administration issued in 2007 and 2009. The court allowed the application: the Interested Parties were enjoined as Defendants, the consent orders were set aside, status quo over the resulting parcels was maintained, pleadings were to be amended and filed, and each party was to bear its own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Joinder of Interested Parties as necessary parties

Holding

The Interested Parties are necessary parties since the land they claim is the same land the Plaintiff purports to have bought; their presence is necessary for final determination of entitlement.

Reasoning

The court found that the land claimed by the 1st Interested Party was the same land the Plaintiff claimed. Under Order 1 Rule 10(2), parties whose presence is necessary for effective and complete adjudication may be joined. Determination of who is entitled to the suit land required the Interested Parties before the court.

02

Setting aside the consent order of 9th December, 2014

Holding

The consent order was set aside because it was entered into mischievously while the Interested Parties' suit over the same land was pending, and because of conflicting Letters of Administration over the estate of Agnes Mbithe.

Reasoning

The Defendants knew of the Interested Parties' claim in ELC No. 225 of 2014 and the status quo order yet recorded a consent transferring the land. The consent prejudiced the Interested Parties' claim, and conflicting Letters of Administration (2007 and 2009) raised doubts as to the administrators' capacity. Entitlement could only be decided at trial.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A court may join a party whose presence is necessary for effective and complete adjudication of all questions in a suit, whether or not an application is made by a party
  • A consent order entered into while third parties had already sued over the same property and obtained status quo orders, whose effect prejudices their claim, may be set aside

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 1st-17th Interested Parties enjoined in this suit as Defendants
  2. 2.The Plaintiff to amend the Originating Summons to include the Interested Parties as Defendants within fourteen (14) days
  3. 3.The Interested Parties to file their pleadings within twenty eight (28) days
  4. 4.The orders of the court of 19th December, 2014 emanating from the consent order dated 27th August, 2014 set aside
  5. 5.Status quo prevailing in respect of Mavoko Municipality Block 3/54594 and 54595 to be maintained pending hearing and determination of the suit
  6. 6.Matter to be mentioned alongside Nairobi ELC No. 225 of 2014 for further directions
  7. 7.Each party to bear its/his own costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 Rule 10(2)
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (joinder of necessary parties)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya African National Traders & Farmers Union v Florence Muoti Kioko & James Mulika Muindi (substituted as defendant in place of Agnes Mbithe Muindi – Deceased) & 18 others [2017] KEELC 1812 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). ELC Case (Machakos) – Application dated 19th December, 2016. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/1812/eng@2017-09-22

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