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 (Mombasa) - Originating Summons dated 8th July, 2022 (application Nos. of 16th May, 2024 and 30th May, 2024)· [2024] KEELC 6023 (KLR)

Timau Agro Industries Limited v Bayshore Limited & another (Civil Suit E076 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 6023 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
16 September 2024
15,331 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~61 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court added key parties to a land dispute but refused to force a Kshs. 85 million deposit before trial.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa (Naikuni J) determined two competing interlocutory applications arising from a dispute over the sale of L.R. No. 3713 (Miritini, Mombasa) under an Agreement for Sale dated 8th June, 2017 for Kshs. 231,668,605. The plaintiff, Timau Agro Industries Limited, sought to join the advocate who acted in the transaction (Abdulswamad Abeid Said t/a A.A. Said & Co. Advocates) together with the Chief Land Registrar and the Land Registrar, Mombasa, as 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants, and leave to further amend its Amended Originating Summons, alleging the transfers were fraudulent and effected without payment of the purchase price and requisite stamp duty. The 1st Defendant, Bayshore Limited, sought a mandatory injunction compelling the plaintiff to deposit Kshs. 85,087,187.50 in court (alleged sums paid in excess of the contractual 30% deposit) and a site visit to verify the squatter situation. Applying Order 1 Rules 3 and 10(2), the court found the joinder merited since the plaintiff had a claim against the intended parties arising from the same transactions, and their presence would enable complete adjudication and avoid multiplicity of suits. Leave to amend was granted under Order 8 Rules 3 and 5. The 1st Defendant's application was dismissed: no special circumstances justified a mandatory interlocutory injunction given the substantial competing claims requiring full trial. Costs of both applications were reserved to the cause, with pre-trial directions and a hearing date of 30th October, 2024 fixed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Joinder of intended 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants

Holding

Joinder allowed as the intended parties are implicated in the same transactions over the suit property

Reasoning

The court applied Order 1 Rules 3 and 10(2), holding that joinder is proper where the plaintiff alleges a right to relief against the person arising from the same act or transaction, and where their presence enables the court to effectually and completely adjudicate on all questions. The advocate who drew the impugned transfers and the registrars who effected them were said to be necessary to settle all questions and avoid multiplicity of suits.

p. 24
02

Leave to further amend the Amended Originating Summons

Holding

Leave granted; amendments freely allowed where made to capture newly discovered facts

Reasoning

Relying on Order 8 Rules 3 and 5(1), section 100 of the Civil Procedure Act and Halsbury's principles, the court held that amendments should be freely allowed if made in good faith and without injustice, since the power may be exercised at any stage. The plaintiff's proposed amendments sought to plead newly discovered fraud against the newly joined parties and would enable the real questions in controversy to be determined.

p. 26
03

1st Defendant's application for deposit of Kshs. 85,087,187.50 and site visit

Holding

Dismissed; a mandatory injunction requires special circumstances absent at the interlocutory stage

Reasoning

The court characterized the deposit order as a mandatory injunction, which should not normally issue at the interlocutory stage absent special circumstances or a case so clear it ought to be decided at once. Given the huge competing claims on compliance with the sale agreement demanding interrogation at full trial, the orders were premature and the application failed entirely.

p. 26

Legal principles established

#
  • A person may only be joined as a defendant where the plaintiff has a claim against him arising out of the same transaction or where common questions of law or fact arise
  • A mandatory injunction should not normally be granted at the interlocutory stage absent special circumstances or a case so clear it ought to be decided at once
  • Amendments of pleadings should be freely allowed, the discretion to be exercised judiciously

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 16th May, 2024 be and is hereby found to be meritorious and thus allowed
  2. 2.The Notice of Motion application dated 30th May, 2024 be and is hereby found to lack merit and is dismissed
  3. 3.Abdulswamad Abeid Said t/a A.A. Said & Co. Advocates, The Chief Land Registrar and The Land Registrar Mombasa joined as the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants
  4. 4.Plaintiff granted fourteen (14) days to file and serve the Further Amended Originating Summons
  5. 5.Defendants granted 7 days corresponding leave to file and serve Amended Response and/or Counter-Claim if need be
  6. 6.Plaintiff granted 3 days to file response to the Defendants' Response
  7. 7.Matter fixed for hearing on 30th October, 2024, with mention on 9th October, 2024 for Pre-Trial Conference under Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
  8. 8.Costs of both applications to be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 40
  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 27(1), 100
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 1 Rules 1, 3, 10(2); Order 8 Rules 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; Order 11; Order 40 Rules 1 and 2(1) & (2)
  • Land Registration Act, 2012Sections 25, 26, 27(1)
  • Land Act, 2012Sections 39(a) and (b), 43(2)

Cases cited (23)

  • Pravin Bowry v John Ward and Another
    [2015] eKLR
  • Civicon Limited v Kivuwatt Limited and 2 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Meme v Republic
    [2004] KLR 637; [2004] 1 EA 124
  • Bosire Ongero v Royal Media Services
    2015 KLR
  • Institute for Social Accountability & Another v Parliament of Kenya and 3 Others
    (2014) KLR
  • Edco Africa Limited & Dr. Mwaniki Dinguri Nick v Boniface Ndege Kirigia & 2 Others
    (2023) eKLR
  • Giella v Cassman Brown
    (1973) EA 358
  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 others
    CA No.77 of 2012 (2014) eKLR
  • Mrao Ltd v First American Bank of Kenya Limited
    (2003) eKLR
  • Omboko v Speaker & Chairperson of Busia County Assembly Service Board & 6 others
    (Petition E005 of 2020) [2022] KEELRC 14695 (KLR) (7th July 2022)(Ruling)
  • Habiba W Ramadhan & 7 others v Mary Njeri Gitiba
    (2017) eKLR; Court ELC Case No 119 of 2014
  • Communications Commission of Kenya & 4 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 7 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Reid, Hewitt & Co v Joseph
    AIR 1918 Cal 717
  • Myres v Defries
    (1880) 5 Ex D 180
  • Morgan Air Cargo Limited v Evrest Enterprises Limited
    [2014] eKLR
  • Jacinta Wanjiru Mwengwa v Samwel Theuri & 3 others
    [2019] eKLR
  • Rubina Ahmed & 3 others v Guardian Bank Ltd (Sued in its capacity as a successor in Title to First National Finance Bank Limited)
    [2019] eKLR
  • Mayfair Establishments Limited v Taib (Sued as the Legal Representative of the Estate of Sheikh Ali Taib Bajaber - Deceased) & 3 others
    (Environment & Land Case 99 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 5601 (KLR) (30 July 2024) (Ruling)
  • Joseph Kaloki t/a Royal Family Assembly v Nancy Atieno Ouma
    [2020] eKLR
  • Kenya Breweries Limited & another v Washington O. Okeyo
    [2002] eKLR
  • Sharifi Abdi Hassan v Nadhif Jama Adan
    [2006] eKLR
  • Jasbir Rai Singh v Tarchalan Singh
    (2014) eKLR
  • Cecilia Karuru Ngayo v Barclays Bank of Kenya Limited
    (2014) eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21; Order 1 Rules 1 & 3, Order 8 Rules 3, 4 and 5, Order 40 Rule 2(1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Timau Agro Industries Limited v Bayshore Limited & another (Civil Suit E076 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 6023 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Environment & Land Case (Mombasa) - Originating Summons dated 8th July, 2022 (application Nos. of 16th May, 2024 and 30th May, 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6023/eng@2024-09-16

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