Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (ELC, Embu)· [2021] KEELC 806 (KLR)

Kathendu Kareri & another v Ita Kiborio & another [2021] KEELC 806 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 October 2021
3,105 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~12 min to read original · ~4 min brief

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

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Embu on a post-judgment notice of motion dated 23/2/2021 by Pius Nyaga Nthiga, who sought to join the concluded land suit as an interested party in his capacity as administrator of the estate of his late father, Charles Nthiga Gitumo. The father had been the second defendant but withdrew from the suit by consent on 11/10/2017 and died in 2019. The court had, on 27/2/2020, found for the plaintiffs, holding that the defendant held the suit parcels (various Embu/Gangara land parcels) in trust for the members of Miugu House of the Gakera clan. The applicant sought review or setting aside of the judgment, stay of implementation of the decree, and joinder. The respondents opposed, arguing the joinder provisions apply only to pending suits, that the application was an afterthought filed about a year after judgment, and that the allegation that the father was unwell when he consented was unproved. The court framed four issues: joinder, review/set-aside, stay, and costs. Relying on Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Lilian Wairimu Ngatho v Moki Savings, it held joinder is unavailable after a suit is concluded. It further held that an interested party is a peripheral party and one claiming rights over the subject matter must join as plaintiff or defendant, citing Joseph Leboo and Muruatetu. The applicant's evidence was not shown to be new or undiscoverable. Stay was refused as the applicant remained a stranger. The application was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant ought to be enjoined in the suit as an interested party

Holding

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.

Reasoning

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.

p. 3
02

Whether the court should review or set aside the judgment

Holding

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.

Reasoning

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.

p. 4
03

Whether stay of implementation of the judgment should be granted

Holding

Stay declined because the applicant remains a stranger to the suit.

Reasoning

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.

p. 4
04

Costs

Holding

Costs awarded to the respondents, the applicant having caused the other parties to incur costs.

Reasoning

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.

p. 4

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. 1.Application dismissed
  2. 2.Applicant to pay costs of the application to the respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 Rules 1, 3 and 10 (including 10(2) and 10(3))
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 51 Rules 1 and 15

Cases cited (6)

  • Wachira Karani Vs Bildan Wachira
    [2016] eKLR
  • Richard Nchapai Leiyapo Vs IEBC and 2 others
  • Lilian Wairimu Ngatho & Another Vs Moki savings Co-operative Society Limited & Another
    [2014] eKLR
  • Joseph Leboo Vs Director, Kenya Forest Service & Others
    ELC No. 273 of 2013, Eldoret
  • Francis Kariuki Muruatetu & Another V Republic and 5 others
    (2016) eKLR
  • Republic Vs Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Exparte Apollo Mboya
    [2019] eKLR
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.