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 as provided· [2023] KEELC 286 (KLR)

Trustees of Kenya Ports Authority Pension Scheme v Nairobi City Council & another (Environment & Land Case 932 of 2016) [2023] KEELC 286 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
26 January 2023
2,041 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 refused to remove a former MCA from a land dispute because she waited until after the hearing ended to ask.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi on a Notice of Motion dated 21st February 2022 by which the 2nd Defendant sought to be struck out or removed from proceedings on the ground that she had been sued as the substantive holder of the seat of Member of County Assembly for South C Ward, Nairobi City County, a seat she lost in the 2017 General Elections, and that the claim against her could therefore not be sustained. The Plaintiff, whose suit filed on 2nd August 2016 concerns trespass on its land through construction of kiosks on a portion of the suit property and the wrongful issue of Temporary Occupation Licenses, opposed the application, contending that the 2nd Defendant was sued both individually and as MCA, that she personally incited and mobilized members of the public to trespass, and that the application, brought after more than six years while the matter was pending judgment, was an abuse of process and demonstrated indolence. The court framed the issue as whether the 2nd Defendant was improperly enjoined and whether her presence was necessary. Applying Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the twin test for necessary parties in Werrot v Gregory, and the definition of a proper party in Zephir Holdings, the court found the Plaintiff had a direct and real interest and right of relief against the 2nd Defendant, who was sued both as MCA and in her individual capacity and admitted involvement in advising residents on upgrading kiosks on the suit property. It further held it was late in the day to seek removal after hearing, with the Plaintiff having presented two witnesses and the 2nd Defendant having closed her case without evidence. The application was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 2nd Defendant is improperly joined and whether her presence is necessary

Holding

The 2nd Defendant is a necessary party; the application to strike her out was dismissed

Reasoning

Applying Order 1 Rule 10(2) and the twin test in Werrot v Gregory, the court found the Plaintiff asserted a direct and real interest and right of relief against the 2nd Defendant, who was sued both as MCA and individually and admitted involvement in advising residents on upgrading kiosks on the suit property. Further, the suit had proceeded to hearing, the Plaintiff testified through two witnesses, and the 2nd Defendant closed her case without evidence, making removal at that stage improper.

p. 4
02

Timing of the application to be removed from proceedings

Holding

It is too late, the matter being pending judgment

Reasoning

The court held that since the suit had proceeded to full hearing, with the Plaintiff presenting two witnesses and the 2nd Defendant electing not to adduce evidence, the prudent course was to determine the suit on its merits on the pleadings and evidence on record rather than remove a party at that stage.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A party sued both in an official and individual capacity whose acts are directly in issue is a necessary party who cannot be struck out at the close of proceedings
  • An application to be removed as a party after hearing and closure of the party's case is properly refused as it comes too late

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 21st February 2022 is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 1 Rule 10(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 14
  • County Government ActSection 9
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 159(2)(a) and (b)

Cases cited (10)

  • Werrot and Company Ltd & Others v Andrew Douglas Gregory & Others
    [1998] eKLR
  • Boniface Omondi v Mathare Youth Sports Association & Another
    (2021) eKLR
  • Kimunai Ole Kimeiwa & 5 Others v Joseph Motari Mosigisi (the then District Commissioner, Rongai District) & 3 others
    [2019] eKLR
  • Letang v Cooper
    [1965] Q.B. 232
  • Zephir Holdings Ltd v Mimosa Plantations Ltd, Jeremiah Matzagaro & Ezekiel Misango Mutisya
    [2014] eKLR
  • Pravin Bowry v John Ward & Another
    [2015] eKLR
  • D.T. Dobie and Company (K) Ltd v Joseph Mbaria Muchina & Another
    (1982) eKLR
  • Yaya Towers Limited v Trade Bank Limited (in liquidation)
    [2000] eKLR
  • Kizito M. Lubano v KEMRI Board of Management & 8 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • George Kimotho Ilewe v Joseph Mathuku Ngewa & Another
    [2022] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (discretion to strike out or add parties); Article 159(2)(a) and (b) of the Constitution invoked on expeditious disposal

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Trustees of Kenya Ports Authority Pension Scheme v Nairobi City Council & another (Environment & Land Case 932 of 2016) [2023] KEELC 286 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/286/eng@2023-01-26

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