Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedELC No. 554 of 2013 (consolidated with ELC No. 493 of 2013)· [2021] KEELC 191 (KLR)

Jayen Motichand Dodhia v Land Registrar Nakuru & 3 others [2021] KEELC 191 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 December 2021
1,736 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

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed a very late application to join a seller to a double-titling dispute because resolving the case fairly outweighed the delay.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru on a Chamber Summons dated 10th February 2021 by the 1st and 3rd defendants (the Land Registrar and the Attorney General) seeking leave under Order 15 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules to institute third party proceedings against Albert Kipkosgei Lessonet in consolidated suits ELC No. 493 of 2013 and ELC No. 554 of 2013. The suits concern Nakuru Municipality Block 17/61, over which two certificates of lease existed, one registered to Lessonet (16th November 1990) and later one to Gideon Moi (12th January 2000). Jayen Dodhia, who bought the property from Lessonet in 2009, claims indemnity of Kshs. 170,825,010 from the defendants for negligent maintenance of land records and double titling; Gideon Moi claims ownership, mesne profits and eviction. The defendants sought to join Lessonet to obtain indemnity, alleging he fraudulently obtained the title he sold. The plaintiff and the proposed third party opposed, arguing the application would convolute the issues and that fraud, if any, occurred in the defendants' offices. The court held that although the application came long after the 14-day window and years after filing in 2013, pertinent issues on the root of the titles justified joinder. Lessonet was held a necessary party. The application was allowed with leave granted, the Third Party Notice to be filed and served within 21 days, and each party bearing their own costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Leave for third party proceedings notwithstanding belated application

Holding

The delay since 2013 does not defeat the application because pertinent issues going to the root of title raised in the application require the third party's participation.

Reasoning

Order 15 Rule 1 requires leave within 14 days of close of pleadings, and the application was filed long after. However, the court held that the application raised pertinent issues on the root of the titles held by the proposed third party and Gideon Moi over the same parcel. If the third party fraudulently obtained the title he sold to the plaintiff, the defendants may be entitled to indemnity if found liable. Justice therefore outweighed the delay.

p. 2
02

Whether the proposed third party is a necessary party

Holding

The proposed third party is a necessary party whose participation is needed for the court to effectually determine all issues in the two consolidated suits without a separate suit.

Reasoning

Two titles existed over the same parcel, Nakuru Municipality Block 17/61, registered to Albert Kipkosgei Lessonet and Gideon Moi at different times. The court must ascertain how the two titles came to be issued. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is for negligence and indemnity, while the defendants allege fraud by the third party in obtaining the title he sold. Joining him allows all issues to be conclusively adjudicated, consistent with the multiplicity-avoidance rationale in the cited authorities.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Third party proceedings are justified where the third party is a necessary party enabling the court to settle all matters in controversy and avoid multiplicity of suits.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the 1st and 3rd defendants to institute third party proceedings against Albert Kipkosgei Lessonet
  2. 2.Applicants to file and serve the Third Party Notice within 21 days
  3. 3.Matter to be mentioned for directions on 9th February 2022
  4. 4.Each party to bear their own costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 15 Rule 1

Cases cited (4)

  • Interactive Advertising Ltd & Another -vs- Equity Bank Ltd & 2 Others
    (2016) eKLR
  • Transami (U) Ltd -vs- Tranocean (U) Ltd
    Kampala High Court Civil suit No. 145 of 1987 (1994) I KAR 175
  • Pizza Harvest Limited -vs- Felix Midigo
    (2013) eKLR
  • Amon -vs- Raphael Tuck & Sours
    (1956) I All ER 273
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 15 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Jayen Motichand Dodhia v Land Registrar Nakuru & 3 others [2021] KEELC 191 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). ELC No. 554 of 2013 (consolidated with ELC No. 493 of 2013). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/191/eng@2021-12-16

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