Kathendu Kareri & another v Ita Kiborio & another [2021] KEELC 806 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled you cannot join a finished land case as an interested party to reclaim property rights your family gave up.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant ought to be enjoined in the suit as an interested party
Joinder refused: joinder under Order 1 Rule 10(2) is only available during the pendency of a suit, and the applicant, who seeks to defend substantive rights over the suit properties, misunderstood the peripheral role of an interested party.
Order 1 Rule 10(2) permits joinder at any stage of the proceedings but not after conclusion. The applicant's father was a defendant who voluntarily consented to withdrawal of the suit against him in 2017 and died in 2019. The claim that the father was unwell was not proved by medical evidence. An interested party has only a recognisable interest without claiming rights over the subject matter; one claiming such rights must apply to be joined as plaintiff or defendant. The applicant failed to demonstrate the Muruatetu requirements of personal interest, prejudice, and relevance of evidence.
Whether the court should review or set aside the judgment
Review/set-aside refused; the father opted out of the suit of his own volition and the material the applicant seeks to adduce is not new evidence.
The father knew the remaining suit concerned properties in which he was a registered owner yet chose to withdraw in 2017 and had ample time to seek re-joining before his death in 2019. Review under Order 45 requires sufficient reason; new and important evidence must be such as could not have been discovered with due diligence and was not available to the applicant or the court. The applicant did not demonstrate this, so the discretion was not exercised in his favour.
Whether stay of implementation of the judgment should be granted
Stay declined because the applicant remains a stranger to the suit.
Having refused joinder and review, the applicant is not a party. Stay of implementation can only be considered in favour of a party to the suit. A stranger cannot seek stay of a judgment in a case to which he is not a party. The prayer therefore fails automatically with the failure of the preceding prayers.
Costs
Costs awarded to the respondents, the applicant having caused the other parties to incur costs.
Costs follow the event unless the court, for good reason, orders otherwise. The applicant, a stranger to the suit, made the other parties incur costs. No good reason was shown to depart from the ordinary rule, so the applicant was ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Legal principles established
#- A party can only be joined to a suit during its pendency, not after it has been concluded.
- An interested party is a peripheral party and cannot be used as a device to agitate personal rights over the subject matter.
- He who alleges must prove; allegations of incapacity must be supported by evidence.
Court orders
#- 1.Application dismissed
- 2.Applicant to pay costs of the application to the respondents
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 1 Rules 1, 3 and 10, Order 51 Rules 1 and 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and Order 45 (review), Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kathendu Kareri & another v Ita Kiborio & another [2021] KEELC 806 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment (ELC, Embu). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/806/eng@2021-10-25
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.