Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedApplication dated 24th May 2018 (suit details not stated)· [2019] KEELC 3304 (KLR)

County Government Of Uasin Gishu v Attorney General & 20 others [2019] KEELC 3304 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 May 2019
MOM.A. ODENY
1,974 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan land court allowed a man who occupies and inherited part of disputed land to join the case as an interested party.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by M.A. Odény J of the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret, delivered on 8th May 2019, determined a notice of motion dated 24th May 2018 by John Kemeli seeking joinder as an interested party in a land suit. The application was opposed only by the 4th, 8th, 9th, 13th and 19th defendants through a replying affidavit of Wilson Busienei sworn on 23rd October 2018; the plaintiff and other respondents raised no objection. Counsel for the applicant relied on Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and authorities including Muruatetu, Judicial Service Commission v Speaker of the National Assembly, Trusted Society of Human Rights v Mumo Matemo and Joseph Njau Kingori v Robert Maina Chege, contending the applicant had an identifiable beneficial interest in part of the suit parcel, inherited from his late father, of whose estate he is an administrator in Succession Cause 29 of 1988, and which he occupies. The respondents argued he had not demonstrated a legitimate interest. The court framed three issues: whether joinder was permissible under Order 1 Rule 10(2); whether the applicant demonstrated a stake or interest; and whether he would be affected by the decision such that joinder would avoid multiplicity of suits. Holding that no express procedure exists for joining interested parties but the court may invoke Rule 10(2) and its inherent jurisdiction, the judge found the applicant met the threshold, his presence would assist complete adjudication without altering the substratum of the suit. The application was allowed with costs in the cause, and the interested party was directed to file and serve documents within 14 days.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the proposed interested party demonstrated an identifiable stake or legal interest sufficient for joinder

Holding

The applicant met the threshold for joinder as an interested party, having demonstrated beneficial interest in and possession of part of the suit land.

Reasoning

The court noted there is no express procedure for joining interested parties under the Civil Procedure Act and Rules, but a non-party may invoke Order 1 Rule 10(2) and the court's inherent jurisdiction. The applicant showed beneficial interest over part of the suit parcel inherited from his late father, appointment as administrator in Succession Cause 29 of 1988, and actual possession. The joinder would not change the substratum of the case and would enable complete adjudication, avoiding parties mushrooming after decree.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Order 1 Rule 10(2) gives the court discretion to order joinder of an interested party where its presence is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon all questions in the suit.
  • An interested party is one with an identifiable stake in the proceedings who will be affected by the decision either way.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant John Kemeli is enjoined in the suit as an interested party
  2. 2.The interested party to file and serve his documents, if any, within the next 14 days
  3. 3.Costs of the application in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 Rule 10(2)
  • Civil Procedure Act

Cases cited (5)

  • Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another vs Republic & 5 others
    Petition 15 as consolidated with 16 of 2013 [2016] eKLR
  • Judicial Service Commission vs Speaker of the National Assembly & Another
    (2013) eKLR
  • Trusted Society of Human Rights vs Mumo Matemo & 5 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Joseph Njau Kingori vs Robert Maina Chege & 3 others
    [2002] eKLR
  • High Court of Kenya Nairobi Constitutional Petition, No. 37 of 2017
    No. 37 of 2017
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules; inherent jurisdiction and overriding objective of the civil process

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "County Government Of Uasin Gishu v Attorney General & 20 others [2019] KEELC 3304 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Application dated 24th May 2018 (suit details not stated). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3304/eng@2019-05-08

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