Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (original action relating to LR No. 9045/9)· [2017] KEELC 1969 (KLR)

Doune Farms Ltd v Richard Soi & 4 others [2017] KEELC 1969 (KLR)

High Court of Kenya
31 July 2017
1,640 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's High Court refused to let a co-operative society join a land case as a defendant, confirming courts won't force plaintiffs to sue people they haven't chosen.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By Notice of Motion dated 17th January 2017 under Order 1 rule 10(2) and Order 8 rules 3 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Borop Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd, an interested party in a long-running land dispute over LR No. 9045/9, sought leave to be enjoined as the 6th defendant in the original action and as plaintiff in a counterclaim against the Chief Land Registrar, Registrar of Titles, Sonaiya Serser, Moses K. Siongok and Joel K. Yegon, together with leave to amend pleadings. Its chairman, John K. Rotich, deposed that the society had a claim over the suit property rivaling the plaintiff's and that its presence was necessary for complete adjudication. The plaintiff, Richard Kay Muir, opposed through the affidavit of 23rd January 2017, contending the applicant was indolent, having taken 15 years to seek defendant status, and was in essence attempting to reinstitute a claim earlier pursued in HCC No. 1561 of 2002 and dismissed for want of prosecution on 17th May 2012. Ohungo J observed that proceedings commenced by plaint have no provision for an 'Interested Party', citing Munyao J in Marigat Group Ranch. The court held that a party claiming rights over the subject matter must seek to be plaintiff or defendant, and that the court should be slow to impose defendants on a plaintiff, whose choice of whom to sue deserves paramount though not absolute consideration. Allowing the application would impose the applicant on the plaintiff and introduce a parallel counterclaim with new parties, muddling the plaintiff's claim. The motion was dismissed with costs on 31st July 2017 at Nakuru.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether an interested party in a plaint-initiated suit can be converted into a defendant with a counterclaim

Holding

No; the court refused to enjoin the applicant as defendant and allow a counterclaim with new parties

Reasoning

The rules meticulously define the roles of parties in suits commenced by plaint, and there is no provision for an 'Interested Party' in such proceedings. Where a party claims rights over the subject matter, it should seek to be plaintiff or defendant. Imposing the applicant as defendant and permitting a parallel counterclaim with new parties would unjustly muddle the plaintiff's claim. The plaintiff's choice of defendants merits paramount, though not absolute, consideration.

p. 3
02

Whether delay of about 15 years and a prior dismissed suit bar the joinder application

Holding

The plaintiff argued delay and prior dismissal; the court's dismissal rested primarily on the impropriety of imposing a defendant and a counterclaim on the plaintiff

Reasoning

The plaintiff deposed that the applicant was indolent, taking 15 years to seek defendant status, and had squandered its opportunity in HCC No. 1561 of 2002, dismissed for want of prosecution on 17th May 2012, so the application was in essence an attempt to reinstitute a dismissed claim. The applicant contended delay was no bar and that joinder would avoid multiplicity of suits. The court did not rest its decision expressly on delay.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A person with a claim over the subject matter of a suit should apply to be enjoined as plaintiff or defendant, not as an interested party
  • The court should be slow to impose a defendant upon a plaintiff, whose choice of whom to sue must be given paramount though not absolute consideration

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Notice of Motion dated 17th January 2017 dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 1 rule 10(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 8 rules 3 and 5
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 1 rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 1 rule 3
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 1 rule 15
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 22 rule 51
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 4 rule 5
  • Civil Procedure ActCap 21
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159

Cases cited (1)

  • Marigat Group Ranch & 3 others v Wesley Chepkoiment & 19 others
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 1 rule 10(2) and Order 8 rules 3 and 5 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Doune Farms Ltd v Richard Soi & 4 others [2017] KEELC 1969 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Not stated in the judgment (original action relating to LR No. 9045/9). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/1969/eng@2017-07-31

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