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 judgment (arising from an undefended Originating Summons at Malindi)· [2024] KEELC 4654 (KLR)

Lion Beach Limited & another v Kwanza Estate Limited; Dubai Bank Kenya Limited (In Liquidation) & another (Interested Parties) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 10 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 4654 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
12 June 2024
4,277 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~17 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court at Malindi set aside an adverse possession judgment won without proper service, and ordered the land's chargee and its liquidator joined to the suit.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Malindi (E. K. Makori, J) on a Notice of Motion dated 24th January 2024 seeking to stay, set aside and have the court review proceedings, a judgment delivered on 6th December 2023, the decree and consequential orders in an ex parte undefended Originating Summons in which the Respondent had been declared entitled to ½ an acre of Plot No. 49 Watamu by adverse possession, and further seeking joinder of Dubai Bank Limited (the chargee) and its liquidator as interested parties. The Applicant contended it was never served with summons; that service on the firm of Konosi & Co. Advocates was ineffective as the firm had no instructions to accept service; that the process server's affidavit was defective; and that it had a good defence raising triable issues, having purchased the property from the National Bank of Kenya in 2010 and charged it to Dubai Bank for Kshs 160,000,000. The Respondent maintained that the process server was directed by the Applicant's director to serve the firm, that the receiving stamp proved service, and that the draft defence raised no triable issues. The court held that service on Konosi & Co. Advocates was irregular for want of instructions; that the default judgment was irregular and should be set aside; that the Applicant's defence raised triable issues; and that joinder of the chargee and its liquidator was imperative since an undisclosed charge encumbered the register and the decree could not be enforced without dealing with it. The court also noted the pending related suit, Malindi ELC E050 of 2023, whose issues could not be dealt with in isolation. The application was allowed, with the Applicant bearing the costs of the application.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether there was proper service of summons on the Applicant

Holding

Service on the firm of Konosi & Co. Advocates was irregular because no instructions had been given to that firm to act for the Applicant; the default judgment was therefore irregular and liable to be set aside as of right.

Reasoning

The court examined the affidavit of service and Order 5 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Although the process server narrated a sequence of events, the uncontroverted affidavit of Wilfred Konosi that the firm never received instructions to accept service meant service on the advocate was ineffective. Without valid service, the default judgment was irregular and the court could set it aside ex debito justitiae.

p. 6
02

Whether the joinder of the 1st and 2nd intended interested parties was necessary

Holding

Joinder was imperative because the suit property is charged to the 1st intended interested party, under receivership/liquidation of the 2nd, and the decree cannot be enforced without dealing with the charge.

Reasoning

Relying on Pravin Bowry v John Ward and Civicon Limited v Kivuwatt Limited, the court held that all persons affected by litigation necessary for complete adjudication should be enjoined. The postal search revealed an existing charge in favour of Dubai Bank Kenya Limited, which was never disclosed to the court at the adverse possession trial; the chargee and its liquidator have statutory interests that must be before the court.

p. 7
03

Whether the Applicant's proposed defence raises triable issues

Holding

The court found the defence raised triable issues warranting setting aside of the default judgment and leave to defend.

Reasoning

The Applicant explained it purchased the suit property from the National Bank of Kenya under statutory power of sale in 2010 and charged it to Dubai Bank; it reported trespass by the Applicant/Respondent to the DCI and filed Malindi ELC E050 of 2023 for eviction, unaware of the adverse possession suit. The court also noted the pending suit could not be dealt with in isolation as conflicting decisions would emanate from the same court.

p. 8

Legal principles established

#
  • A summons may be served upon an advocate only where that advocate has instructions to accept service and enter appearance; judgment in default may be entered after such service.
  • A claim for adverse possession must be brought against the registered proprietor of the land, and encumbrances on the register must be brought to the court's attention.
  • A chargee with a registered encumbrance over land claimed in adverse possession has a statutory right of sale, and the decree cannot be enforced without dealing with the charge.
  • Any party reasonably affected by pending litigation is a necessary and proper party and should be enjoined under Order 1 Rule 10(2).

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 24th January 2024 is allowed
  2. 2.The judgment and decree of 6th December 2023 and consequential orders are set aside and the Applicant granted leave to defend the suit (as sought in the application)
  3. 3.The 1st and 2nd proposed intended interested parties are joined to the suit (as sought in the application)
  4. 4.The Applicant to bear the costs of the application

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 5 Rule 8 (including 8(1) and 8(2))
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 5 Rule 15
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 Rule 10(2)
  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 38

Cases cited (11)

  • Jason Mbugua Kuria v Kennedy Kuria and Another (2021)
    High Court Civil Appeal No. 2 of 2019
  • Development Bank of Kenya Limited v Riva Oils Co. Limited
    [2015] eKLR
  • National Bank of Kenya v Puntland Agencies Limited & 2 Others
    [2006] eKLR
  • Pravin Bowry v John Ward & another
    [2015] eKLR
  • Deported Asians Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd
    [1999] 1 E.A. 55 (SCU)
  • Civicon Limited v Kivuwatt Limited and 2 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Evans Tuma Kalume v Moses Masivai Barasa
    [2021] eKLR
  • Rayat Trading Co. Limited v Bank of Baroda & Tetezi House Ltd
    [2018] eKLR
  • Chevron (K) Ltd v Harrison Charo Wa Shutu
    [2016] eKLR
  • Abdirashid Adan Hassan v Estate of WHE Edgley
    [2022] eKLR
  • Essolly Enterprises Limited v Benjoh Amalgamated Limited
    [2019] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent powers of the Court and Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Order 5 Rule 8(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (application to set aside default judgment and join interested parties)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lion Beach Limited & another v Kwanza Estate Limited; Dubai Bank Kenya Limited (In Liquidation) & another (Interested Parties) (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 10 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 4654 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment (arising from an undefended Originating Summons at Malindi). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4654/eng@2024-06-12

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