Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2021] KEELC 2455 (KLR)

Geoffrey Kiiru Kinyanjui & another v Sayid Mohamed Amin; Jonah Goodwin Kariuki Kaniu & another (Intended Interested Parties) [2021] KEELC 2455 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
15 July 2021
1,570 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled you cannot join someone to a land case—or get an injunction—if they no longer own the land in dispute.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru (J M Mutungi, Judge) disposed of two contested joinder applications arising from litigation over land parcel Naivasha/Maraigushu/Block 10/2 (Kedong), whose subdivision and issuance of subleases to third parties had spawned multiple applications for joinder. All unopposed joinder applications by holders of subtitles arising from the subdivision were deemed allowed, with the applicants enjoined as interested parties. By a Notice of Motion dated 20th July 2020, the defendant sought to enjoin Jefferson Mungai as an interested party and to restrain him from dealing with subdivisions of the Kedong land, alleging he had fraudulently subdivided and taken possession of a plot. Mungai opposed, showing he had purchased the parcel in 2012/2013 from the 1st plaintiff and had since sold and transferred it to Victoria Engineering Co. Ltd. The court declined both the joinder and the injunction, holding it futile to enjoin a person who is no longer the registered proprietor and that an injunction could not issue against land whose current owner was not a party. By a Notice of Motion dated 17th November 2020, Albert Otachi and Muriuki Karuiru sought to be added as 3rd and 4th plaintiffs, claiming they had purchased plots from the plaintiffs but received only plot certificates. The court held they had no role as plaintiffs, granting them leave to participate as interested parties and to file pleadings setting out their claims within 30 days. The court flagged whether a principal/agent relationship existed between the defendant and the plaintiffs as a trial issue. Directions were issued for a schedule of interested parties, a paginated trial bundle within 60 days, and trial directions on 30th September 2021. Each party was to bear its own costs of the applications.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether Jefferson Mungai was a necessary party/interested party

Holding

Joinder declined as he no longer holds any interest in the subject land

Reasoning

The court reviewed the application and the affidavits and found that the parcel the defendant alleged was carved out of the Kedong land was not registered in Jefferson Mungai's name, having been transferred to Victoria Engineering Co. Ltd. Enjoining a person with no present interest in the litigation would serve no purpose. The associated injunction also failed because the current registered proprietor was not before the court.

p. 2
02

Whether the plot-certificate holders should be joined as plaintiffs

Holding

They were joined only as interested parties with leave to file pleadings setting out their claims

Reasoning

Albert Otachi and Muriuki Karuiru purchased plots from the plaintiffs and received only plot certificates. The court found their interest lay in obtaining titles but that they had no role as plaintiffs, since it was unclear whether they claimed against the defendant or the plaintiffs. Their interests could be affected by the trial outcome, justifying participation as interested parties with liberty to plead their claims.

p. 2
03

Whether a principal/agent relationship existed between the defendant and the plaintiffs regarding the subdivision and sale of subplots

Holding

Identified as a matter for determination at trial

Reasoning

The court noted that numerous persons purchased subplots from the plaintiffs, purportedly as the defendant's duly authorized agents, and some hold titles. Whether a valid principal/agent relationship existed was a substantive issue to be resolved at trial, not on the joinder applications. All such title holders were permitted to participate as interested parties.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party who is no longer the registered proprietor of the suit land cannot be enjoined as an interested party; joinder of such a party would be futile
  • An injunction cannot issue against land owned by a non-party to the proceedings
  • Purchasers of subplots whose titles may be affected by the outcome of the suit are properly enjoined as interested parties rather than plaintiffs

Court orders

#
  1. 1.All pending unopposed applications for joinder deemed allowed and the applicants enjoined as interested parties
  2. 2.Prayer for joinder of Jefferson Mungai as an interested party declined
  3. 3.Prayer for injunction against land parcel Naivasha/Maraigushu Block 2/1103 declined
  4. 4.Albert Otachi and Muriuki Karuiru granted leave to participate as interested parties and leave to file appropriate pleadings setting out their interest/claim within 30 days from the date of the ruling
  5. 5.Plaintiff directed to prepare, within 30 days, a schedule of all parties enjoined as interested parties and the subtitles claimed by each
  6. 6.Plaintiff directed, within 60 days, to prepare and file a paginated trial bundle incorporating all parties' documents
  7. 7.Matter fixed for trial directions on 30th September 2021
  8. 8.Each party to bear their own costs in regard to the applications
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land parcel Naivasha/Maraigushu/Block 10/2 (Kedong); joinder applications under the court's procedural rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Geoffrey Kiiru Kinyanjui & another v Sayid Mohamed Amin; Jonah Goodwin Kariuki Kaniu & another (Intended Interested Parties) [2021] KEELC 2455 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/2455/eng@2021-07-15

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