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 No. 771 of 2016 (lead, consolidated with ELC No. 840 of 2016 and ELC No. 1040 of 2016)· [2019] KEELC 2700 (KLR)

Maestro Connections Health Systems Limited & 2 others v Riley Services & 10 others [2019] KEELC 2700 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
20 June 2019
SOS. Okong'o
8,027 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~32 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed a buyer to join a former president and his lawyers to a land dispute, but refused joining the lawyers to an unrelated suit.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi, delivered by S. Okong'o J on 20th June 2019, determined two interlocutory applications by Maestro Connections Health Systems Limited arising from three consolidated suits (ELC Nos. 771, 840 and 1040 of 2016) concerning competing claims to L.R No. 12422/19 at Muthaiga North, Nairobi. Maestro sought leave to amend its plaint in ELC No. 771/2016 to join former President Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi and the firm of Triple OKLaw Advocates as defendants, and leave to amend its counter-claim in ELC No. 1040/2016 to join Triple OKLaw. The applications were triggered by Arap Moi's further amended counter-claim in ELC No. 840/2016 in which he denied ever selling the suit property to Maestro. Arap Moi and Triple OKLaw opposed, contending there was no cause of action against the law firm, that it acted for a disclosed principal, and that the amendment in ELC No. 1040/2016 sought to import Maestro's case in ELC No. 771/2016 into an unrelated 2012 transaction. The court applied the settled principles on amendment of pleadings from Central Kenya Ltd v Trust Bank Ltd and the necessary-party test in Amon v Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd. It held that because Arap Moi disowned the 2016 transaction while Triple OKLaw admitted acting for him and receiving the purchase price, joinder of both in ELC No. 771/2016 was necessary for complete adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of suits, and no prejudice was shown. However, Triple OKLaw had no connection with the 2012 transaction in ELC No. 1040/2016, and the amendment there would licence Maestro to litigate its case twice. The application in ELC No. 771/2016 was allowed in terms of prayers 4 and 5; the application in ELC No. 1040/2016 was dismissed, with costs of both applications in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether leave to amend the plaint in ELC No. 771/2016 to join Arap Moi and Triple OKLaw Advocates should be granted

Holding

Leave granted; Arap Moi's denial of the sale transaction raised issues that could only be conclusively determined with both Arap Moi and Triple OKLaw before the court, and no prejudice or injustice was demonstrated

Reasoning

Arap Moi disowned the transaction through which Maestro acquired title, while Triple OKLaw admitted acting for him and receiving the purchase price. This raised genuine issues as to whether a sale agreement and transfer existed, whether the purchase price was received on Arap Moi's behalf, and who should refund it if the transaction failed. Joinder would enable complete adjudication and avoid multiplicity of suits.

p. 8
02

Whether leave to amend the counter-claim in ELC No. 1040/2016 to join Triple OKLaw Advocates should be granted

Holding

Application dismissed; Triple OKLaw was not a necessary party as it had no connection with the 2012 transaction between Arap Moi and Muthaiga Homes

Reasoning

The proposed amendment sought to import Maestro's entire case in ELC No. 771/2016 into ELC No. 1040/2016, where Triple OKLaw played no role in the transaction between Arap Moi and Muthaiga Homes. Allowing it would license Maestro to conduct its case twice against the same parties, prejudicing them and complicating the trial unnecessarily.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • Amendments and joinder of parties should be freely allowed at any stage provided there is no undue delay, no new or inconsistent cause of action, no vested interest affected and no injustice to the other side
  • A person is a necessary party only where he should be bound by the result of the action and where the question in the action cannot be effectually and completely settled unless he is a party

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Notice of Motion dated 28th January 2019 in ELC No. 771/2016 allowed in terms of prayers 4 and 5 thereof
  2. 2.Amended Notice of Motion dated 8th February 2019 in ELC No. 1040/2016 dismissed
  3. 3.Costs of the applications to be in the cause in the respective cases

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 100
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 rule 10(2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 8 rule 3(1)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 10 rule 2
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159

Cases cited (4)

  • Civicon Ltd v Kivuwatt Ltd. & 2 others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Amon v Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd
    [1956] 1 All E.R 273
  • Central Kenya Ltd. v Trust Bank Ltd.
    [2002] 2 E. A 365 (CAK)
  • Agricultural Finance Corporation v Lengetia Limited & Jack Mwangi
    [1985] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21) and Order 10 rule 2, Order 1 rule 10(2) and Order 8 rule 3(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Maestro Connections Health Systems Limited & 2 others v Riley Services & 10 others [2019] KEELC 2700 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). ELC No. 771 of 2016 (lead, consolidated with ELC No. 840 of 2016 and ELC No. 1040 of 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/2700/eng@2019-06-20

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