Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2022] KEELC 2165 (KLR)

Mediheal Hospital & Fertility Centre Limited v County Government of Nandi [2022] KEELC 2165 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
17 January 2022
MMM. N. Mwanyale
913 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court allowed a county government to bring five new parties into a land dispute but refused to make a widow a respondent since no claims were against her.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet (M. N. Mwanyale, J) determined two Notice of Motion applications canvassed together by written submissions in a petition in which the petitioner, Godfrey Kipkorir Kiptoo, challenges an advertisement by the County Government of Nandi threatening to repossess allegedly illegally acquired parcels including parcels belonging to him. The first application, by the County Government of Nandi, sought leave to file a cross-petition and to join Jacob Kipkemboi Rono, David Kiplagat Kosgei, Agui Songok, Ruth Jepngetich and the Nandi County Land Registrar as 2nd to 6th Respondents to the cross-petition, on the basis that they were initial registered owners whose acquisition of titles was tainted by fraud and that their presence was necessary for complete adjudication. The second application, by Dymphina Chemaiyo Tek, widow and administrix of the estate of the late Peter Kipserem Tek, sought joinder as 2nd Respondent on the ground that Nandi/Kapsabet/292, registered to her late husband, was being litigated. The petitioner opposed both, arguing the proposed respondents had sold the properties and had no interest, that no cause of action lay against them, and that the National Land Commission and the CGN had issued no-objection letters before purchase. Applying the joinder principles in Meme vs Republic, the court granted the CGN leave to file the cross-petition with the five proposed respondents. Dymphina's application to be joined as a respondent was held misconceived, following Carol Construction Engineers Ltd v Naomi Chepkorir Langat, since no relief was sought against her; but she was joined as an interested party given her demonstrated interest in Nandi/Kapsabet Municipality/292. No costs order was made.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether to allow joinder of proposed respondents to a cross-petition

Holding

Leave to file the cross-petition was granted and joinder of the five proposed respondents was allowed because the draft cross-petition seeks declaratory orders and pleads specific actions against them, and their presence would completely settle all questions and avoid proliferated litigation.

Reasoning

The court applied the Meme vs Republic principles. It examined the draft cross-petition by the County Government of Nandi and found it sought declaratory orders against the proposed respondents and pleaded specific actions against them. Their joinder was therefore necessary for complete settlement of all questions and to prevent proliferated litigation, notwithstanding the petitioner's objection that they had sold the properties and had no interest.

p. 2
02

Whether Dymphina Chemaiyo Tek could be joined as a respondent in the main petition

Holding

Her application to be joined as a respondent was misconceived because no relief was sought against her or her late husband; however, having shown an interest in Nandi/Kapsabet Municipality/292, she was joined as an interested party.

Reasoning

The court relied on Carol Construction Engineers Ltd v Naomi Chepkorir Langat, which warned against imposing defendants on a plaintiff who has no issue with them. Since the petitioner pleaded that no relief was sought against the applicant and that the property did not belong to her late husband, joinder as a respondent was refused; but her demonstrated interest in the parcel justified joinder as an interested party.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • The principles governing joinder of a party are that joinder may be ordered where a party's presence will result in complete settlement of all questions, to protect a party who would otherwise be adversely affected in law, and to prevent proliferated litigation.
  • A party against whom no relief is sought in a petition should not be imposed on the petitioner as a respondent; such a party may, however, be joined as an interested party where they demonstrate an interest in the subject property.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the County Government of Nandi to file a cross-petition and include the proposed five respondents (Jacob Kipkemboi Rono, David Kiplagat Kosgei, Agui Songok, Ruth Jepngetich and the Nandi County Land Registrar) in the cross-petition
  2. 2.Dymphina Tek, widow and Administrix of the Estate of the late Peter Tek, granted leave to participate in the main petition as an interested party, not as a respondent

Authorities

#

Cases cited (2)

  • Meme vs Republic
    [2004] 1 124
  • Carol Construction Engineers Ltd v Naomi Chepkorir Langat
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated; original petition jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mediheal Hospital & Fertility Centre Limited v County Government of Nandi [2022] KEELC 2165 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/2165/eng@2022-01-17

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