Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially AllowedEnvironment & Land Case 96 of 2021 (Formerly Eldoret 4 of 2021)· [2022] KEELC 14917 (KLR)

Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited v Biego & 14 others; Bett & 2 others (Proposed Defendant)

Environment and Land Court
17 November 2022
1,325 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~5 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court allowed land buyers to join a KETRACO wayleave case, ruling that anyone with a beneficial interest in disputed land must be heard before orders affect them.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kapsabet (M.N. Mwanyale, J) determined an application dated May 26, 2022 by Joyceline Jerop Bett, Gilbert Sawe, William Kipkosgei Mosbei and Grace Jepketer Kogo seeking leave to be enjoined as defendants in a suit brought by Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited (KETRACO) against fifteen defendants, apparently concerning wayleave over land parcels and compensation to owners. The applicants deponed that they purchased the suit parcels from the 4th, 13th and 14th defendants and thus hold beneficial interests in the properties. The plaintiff opposed, arguing that the applicants' counsel also acted for the defendants, creating a conflict of interest contrary to rules 95 and 96 of the LSK Code of Standards of Professional Practice and Ethical Conduct, 2016, and citing delay in bringing the application. The court framed a single issue: whether the applicants had made a case for joinder and leave to file pleadings. Applying Order 1 rules 3 and 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court held the applicants were necessary parties whose beneficial interests would be affected by any orders, which could only be enforced against them rather than their vendors. The conflict objection failed because all joined parties would be defendants on the same side, and the one-year-five-month delay was not inordinate since hearing had not commenced and no prejudice was shown. The application was allowed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Joinder of necessary parties under Order 1 rule 10(2)

Holding

Applicants claiming beneficial interest in the suit properties through purchase from the 4th, 13th and 14th defendants are necessary parties whose joinder enables complete adjudication

Reasoning

The court held that purchasers of the suit parcels from registered owners have beneficial interests that would be affected by any wayleave or compensation orders. Any orders granted to the plaintiff could only be enforced against the applicants, not the defendants who sold to them, and it would be unjust to determine issues affecting the properties without hearing them.

p. 3
02

Alleged conflict of interest of counsel

Holding

The conflict objection fails because upon joinder the applicants and defendants will all be on the same side

Reasoning

The plaintiff argued that the applicants' counsel also acting for the defendants breached LSK rules 95 and 96 on conflicting interests. The court reasoned that once joined, the applicants become defendants alongside those they purchased from, so no conflict of interest arises between parties on the same side of the record.

p. 3
03

Delay in seeking joinder

Holding

A delay of one year and five months was not inordinate since hearing had not commenced and no prejudice was demonstrated

Reasoning

The suit was filed in January 2021 and the application in May 2022. The court found the delay not inordinate because the hearing of the suit had not taken off and the plaintiff did not sufficiently demonstrate any prejudice it would suffer if the joinder was allowed.

Legal principles established

#
  • A person whose presence is necessary to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon all questions in a suit may be joined as a defendant at any stage of the proceedings
  • Once proposed parties are joined they stand on the same side, so a prior conflict of interest between their counsel and existing defendants does not arise

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Leave granted to the applicants Joyceline Jerop Bett, Gilbert Sawe and Grace Jepketer Kogo to be enjoined as defendants in the suit
  2. 2.Leave granted to the applicants to file pleadings in the suit
  3. 3.Costs in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Actsection 1A
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 1B
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 3A
  • Civil Procedure Actsection 63(e)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 rule 10(2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 rule 3
  • Code of Standards of Professional Practice and Ethical Conduct of the Law Society of Kenya, 2016rules 95 and 96

Cases cited (2)

  • Gladys Nduku Nthuki -vs- Letshego Kenya Limited; Mueni Charles Maingi (intended plaintiff)
    2022 eKLR

    Test for enjoinment of a party with interest in a suit under Order 1 rule 10(2)

  • Abdirahman Husseinwaytan Mohammed -vs- Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission and 4 others
    (2018) eKLR

    Breach of the LSK Code on representation of clients with conflicting interests

Jurisdiction invoked
Order 1 rules 3 and 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules; sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kenya Electricity Transmission Company Limited v Biego & 14 others; Bett & 2 others (Proposed Defendant)", Case Analysis (2022). Environment & Land Case 96 of 2021 (Formerly Eldoret 4 of 2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/14917/eng@2022-11-17

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