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 extract provided· [2018] KEELC 106 (KLR)

Presbiterian Foundation v Stanley Chege & 3 others [2018] KEELC 106 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 December 2018
1,800 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

#

The court refused to let defendants chase a company's directors for a land sale the company itself made—sue the right legal entity, on time.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This interlocutory ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Thika (L. Gacheru, J) determined a Chamber Summons dated 23rd November 2017 by which the Defendants, sued by the Plaintiff for vacant possession of LR.No.13858/97 and eviction, sought directions under Order 1 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules for trial of their indemnity claim against Third Parties, Mutie Willy and Chris Muasya Ngala T/A One2One Development Co. Ltd, or alternatively judgment for indemnity against them. Leave to issue the Third Party Notice had been granted on 16th July 2014, but the Defendants' earlier substituted service application went unprosecuted until October 2017 and was disallowed for unexplained delay. The Plaintiff opposed the fresh application as an abuse of process and a delaying tactic, noting the Third Parties had never entered appearance and both sides had closed their cases. The Third Parties, through Willy Mutie, swore that the Defendants sued the wrong parties, the sale having been effected by One2One Development Co. Ltd, a distinct legal entity. The Court applied Kenya Commercial Bank v Suntra Investment Bank Ltd (2015) eKLR on the purpose of third party proceedings and held there was no proper question of liability to try: the sale agreements were with the company, not its directors, and the Third Parties had filed no defence. Any recourse lay in a separate suit against the company. The application was dismissed entirely with no orders as to costs, and the Defendants were directed to file written submissions.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a proper question of third party liability existed under Order 1 Rule 22

Holding

No - the Defendants sued the directors rather than the company that allegedly sold the suit property, and the Third Parties had not entered appearance or filed a defence

Reasoning

Order 1 Rule 22 gives the court discretion to direct trial of a third party liability question only if satisfied a proper question exists. The sale agreements were between One2One Investment Co. Ltd and the Defendants, yet the Notice targeted the directors personally. A limited liability company is a distinct legal entity capable of suing and being sued, so the wrong parties were joined. Any liability recourse lies in a separate suit against the company.

p. 3
02

Effect of inordinate and unexplained delay in prosecuting third party directions

Holding

The earlier application for substituted service was disallowed due to unexplained delay, and the fresh application came after both parties had closed their cases

Reasoning

Leave to issue the Third Party Notice was granted on 16th July 2014, but the Defendants sought substituted service only in December 2016 and did not prosecute it until October 2017. After the Plaintiff commenced its case they filed the present Chamber Summons. The Court treated the delay and stage of the proceedings as weighing against granting directions, the Plaintiff having testified that both cases were closed.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Third party proceedings are discretionary and lie only where the court is satisfied there is a proper question to be tried as to the third party's liability, their purpose being to prevent multiplicity of actions

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Chamber Summons dated 23rd November 2017 is dismissed entirely with no orders as to costs
  2. 2.The Defendants to file their written submissions as earlier directed by the Court

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 Rule 22 (and Rules 15-22 referenced in quoted authority)

Cases cited (1)

  • Kenya Commercial Bank Vs Suntra Investment Bank Ltd
    (2015) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 1 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Presbiterian Foundation v Stanley Chege & 3 others [2018] KEELC 106 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the extract provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/106/eng@2018-12-20

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