Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNakuru ELC Case No. (referenced as pending since 8th June 2017; linked to Nakuru ELC Case No. 287 of 2018)· [2021] KEELC 3331 (KLR)

Mohammedjaffer Mohammedhusein Nanji & 3 others v Farmline Company Limited & another [2021] KEELC 3331 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
11 May 2021
DOD. O. Ohungo
2,118 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

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court ruled that someone running their own lawsuit over the same land cannot force their way into someone else's case or merge the two.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by D. O. Ohungo J of the Environment and Land Court, Nakuru, determines a Notice of Motion dated 28th May 2019 by Ali Kariuki, styling himself as the intended fourth plaintiff. He sought joinder as fourth plaintiff and consolidation of the present suit with his own Nakuru ELC Case No. 287 of 2018, which it to be the lead file. The applicant, a trustee of the Gilgil Islamic Association Group, claimed the suit properties (Kiambogo/Kiambogo Block 2/13, 527 & 528) were bought by donations for the Nakuru Muslim community and that he had filed suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining sale pending arbitration over mosques on the parcels. The plaintiffs, trustees of the Mohammedhusein Mulla Nanji Trust and registered owners of the properties, opposed, arguing the applicant had no legal interest, was not party to the sale agreement dated 16th September 2015 underlying the suit, and that consolidation would cause delay and prejudice. The defendants associated themselves with the plaintiffs. The court applied Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPR and authorities including Pravin Bowry v John Ward, Deported Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers and Nyati Security Guards. It held the joinder discretion must be exercised judiciously; the applicant had his own suit and advocate, so multiplicity and hearing concerns did not arise, and joinder would muddle the plaintiffs' conduct of their case. On consolidation, the applicant failed to annex the plaint in his own suit, and there was no commonality of issues given his non-membership of the sale agreement. The application was dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs and the defendants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the applicant qualified to be joined as fourth plaintiff

Holding

Rejected - no sufficient interest or necessity shown

Reasoning

The joinder discretion must be exercised judiciously. The existing plaintiffs framed their own cause and chose their representation. The applicant has his own suit and advocate; joining him would muddle conduct of the case and stifle progress. Avoidance of multiplicity does not arise because his own suit already exists.

p. 3
02

Whether the two suits should be consolidated

Holding

Rejected - no common questions of law or fact established

Reasoning

The applicant did not annex the plaint in ELC No. 287 of 2018, depriving the court of the ability to compare pleadings. On his own account he seeks an injunction pending arbitration over mosques, whereas this suit concerns a 2015 sale agreement to which he was not a party.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Joinder of an additional plaintiff is discretionary and requires the applicant to show an interest in the subject matter or that his presence is necessary for effectual and complete adjudication
  • A party already pursuing his own suit cannot claim non-joinder deprives him of a hearing; and where he is not a party to the contract at the centre of the suit, there is no basis for consolidation

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Notice of Motion dated 28th May 2019 dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the plaintiffs and the defendants

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 Rule 6
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 Rule 9
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 3 Rule 5
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 31 Rule 2
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 Rule 10(2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 Rule 1

Cases cited (7)

  • Selecta Kenya Gmbh & Co. KG v Chase Bank Kenya Limited & 2 Others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Laisa Mpoye & 2 others v Kajiado Central Milk Project “The Board” and 5 Others
    [2012] eKLR
  • Benson G Mutahi v Raphael Gichovi Munene Kabutu & 4 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Nyati Security Guards & Services Limited vs Municipal Council of Mombasa
    [2004] eKLR
  • Pravin Bowry –vs- John Ward & Another
    [2015] eKLR
  • Deported Asians Property Custodian Board –vs- Jaffer Brothers Ltd
    [1999] 1 E.A 55 (SCU)
  • Shirvling Supermarket Limited v Jimmy Ondicho Nyabuti & 2 others
    [2018] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (discretion to add/join parties); inherent discretion on consolidation

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mohammedjaffer Mohammedhusein Nanji & 3 others v Farmline Company Limited & another [2021] KEELC 3331 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Nakuru ELC Case No. (referenced as pending since 8th June 2017; linked to Nakuru ELC Case No. 287 of 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/3331/eng@2021-05-11

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