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 AllowedApplication dated 18 July 2014 in Originating Summons commenced in 2004 (suit number not stated in judgment)· [2018] KEELC 220 (KLR)

Erick Kibiwott & 51 others v Chief Land Registrar & another [2018] KEELC 220 (KLR)

Environment & Land Court
30 November 2018
MSMunyao Sila
855 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed a company claiming 60% of disputed land to join an ongoing ownership case as an interested party.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret (Munyao Sila, J) on an application dated 18 July 2014 by Hasham Lalji Properties Limited seeking to be enjoined as an interested party in a suit commenced in 2004 by Originating Summons against the Chief Land Registrar, in which the plaintiffs claim ownership of land parcel LR No. 9723 through adverse possession, alleging that one Bahadurali Nurani sold 377 acres to the Government, 80 acres to the 1st plaintiff, and gifted 20 acres to the Government. Judgment had earlier been entered in favour of the plaintiffs, but was set aside on application of Annah Kimitei, widow of Nyongio Kimitei, who claims the land was jointly purchased in 1963 and that Bahadurali agreed to sell his share to her late husband in 1979. Seventy-one purchasers of 5-acre plots were also earlier enjoined. The applicant, through an affidavit of Diamond Hasham Lalji, claims the whole land was purchased by the company and the late Kimitei in a 60:40 ratio; that registration was in the name of Bahadurali in trust for the company; and that transfers to the Government, the 1st plaintiff and Kimitei were procured through forgery and fraud. The court held that since the applicant claims ownership of about 60% of the land in dispute, its claim would go unheard if the suit proceeded without it, and that all issues are best canvassed in one case. The application was allowed: the applicant was enjoined as interested party with leave to file its statement of claim within 14 days. No orders as to costs were made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Joinder of a party claiming proprietary interest in the subject land as an interested party

Holding

The application for joinder was allowed because the applicant claims ownership of about 60% of the land in dispute and would otherwise be unheard

Reasoning

The court reasoned that the applicant asserts ownership of a substantial chunk of the land in dispute and refutes that the land was ever sold or surrendered to the Government or sold to Kimitei. If the suit proceeded without the applicant, its claim would not be heard. Although the applicant could file a separate suit, the court considered it best that all issues be canvassed in one case, and therefore enjoined the applicant as interested party with leave to file its own statement of claim within 14 days.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party asserting ownership of a substantial portion of land in dispute in pending proceedings should be joined as an interested party so that all issues are canvassed in one case rather than in separate suits

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant, Hasham Lalji Properties Limited, is enjoined to the suit as an interested party
  2. 2.The applicant is permitted to file its own statement of claim to the suit property within 14 days
  3. 3.No orders as to costs
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent power of the Environment and Land Court to join necessary parties to a suit concerning land (not expressly cited in the judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Erick Kibiwott & 51 others v Chief Land Registrar & another [2018] KEELC 220 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Application dated 18 July 2014 in Originating Summons commenced in 2004 (suit number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/220/eng@2018-11-30

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