Jason Gitimu Wang’ara v Martin Munene Wang’ara & 14 others [2017] KEELC 2075 (KLR)
The bottom line
#After a judgment is delivered, Kenyan courts will rarely allow new parties, land freezes, or reviews unless you act promptly and honestly.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Change of advocates after judgment under Order 9 Rule 9
Leave granted since the change was properly sought with notice after judgment
Order 9 Rule 9 requires a court order for a change of advocate after judgment. Wangari & Co. remained on record for the plaintiff since the judgment of 26th August 2013, so the prayer for Nduku Njuki & Co. to come on record was in order and was allowed in terms of the rule.
Post-judgment joinder of an interested party
Rejected; joinder is only useful where a suit is in progress and the issues had been fully determined
Under Order 1 Rule 10(2), joinder is for persons whose presence enables the court to effectually and completely adjudicate on questions in the suit. The judgment of 26th August 2013 had finalized the issues and been executed, and the intended interested party herself declined joinder.
Inhibition orders under Section 68 of the Land Registration Act
Refused for lack of evidence of intended alienation by the defendants
The plaintiff alleged risk of his appeal being frustrated but adduced no evidence that the defendants intended to dispose of the parcels. The defendants had always lived on the land, which the court had found was held in trust for the family, making alienation unlikely.
Setting aside and review of the ex-parte orders of 20th March 2015
Refused; service was properly effected and the application was brought after unreasonable delay
The record showed hearing notice served on both Wangari & Co. and Nduku Njuki & Co. by an advocate of the court; no affidavit denying service was sworn by the advocates. The discretion to set aside orders is not for dishonest parties, and the review application filed over a year later failed the requirement of no unreasonable delay under Order 45.
Legal principles established
#- A party cannot be enjoined to a suit post-judgment; joinder serves a purpose only where the suit is in progress
- The discretion to set aside ex-parte orders is not available to a party who deliberately misleads the court or obstructs justice
- An application for review must be made without unreasonable delay
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the firm of Nduku Njuki & Co. Advocates to come on record for the Plaintiff/Applicant in place of Wangari & Co. Advocates
- 2.Prayer to enjoin Wamwirua Nguma as an interested party rejected
- 3.Prayer for inhibition orders over land parcels No. MWEA/TEBERE/B/4293, 4294, 4295, 4296, 4298, 4299, 4300, 4301 and 4302 rejected
- 4.Prayer to set aside, vary and/or review the orders issued on 20th March 2015 rejected
- 5.Application dated 23rd June 2016 dismissed with costs to the Defendants/Respondents and the Intended Interested Party
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 9 Rule 9, Order 40 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 68 of the Land Registration Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jason Gitimu Wang’ara v Martin Munene Wang’ara & 14 others [2017] KEELC 2075 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2017). Notice of Motion dated 23rd June 2016 (arising from judgment delivered 26th August 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2017/2075/eng@2017-07-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.