Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment· [2024] KEELC 6139 (KLR)

Curly Wurly Limited & 3 others v Kenya Ports Authoriiy & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 200'B' of 2021) [2024] KEELC 6139 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
24 September 2024
NMN.A. MATHEKA
1,465 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Mombasa added Kenya Railways and KeNHA as defendants so landowners' compensation claims can be fully resolved.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This was a ruling on a notice of motion dated 19th February 2024 in an Environment and Land Court suit at Mombasa concerning compensation for land affected by the Mombasa Port Development Project and the Mombasa-Nairobi Standard Gauge Railway project. The applicant sought the joinder of Kenya Railways Corporation and Kenya National Highways Authority (KeNHA) as 3rd and 4th Defendants, and leave to amend pleadings accordingly. The application was anchored on Article 159 of the Constitution, the Environment and Land Court Act, the Civil Procedure Act and Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Order 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The applicant explained that gazette notices for acquisition and compensation had been published by the National Land Commission on behalf of Kenya Railways and KeNHA, not the Kenya Ports Authority, leading to affected landowners being inadvertently omitted from KPA's compensation programme. The court applied Order 1 Rule 10(2) and the Supreme Court's decision in Communications Commission of Kenya v Royal Media Services, along with Meme v. Republic, on the criteria for joinder. It found the intended defendants were lead agencies in the projects, were extensively mentioned in the pleadings and evidence, and that their presence was necessary for complete and effectual adjudication without prejudice to existing parties. The court allowed the application, enjoined the two entities as defendants, granted leave to amend pleadings, and ordered costs of the application to be in the cause.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the intended defendants are necessary parties for effective adjudication

Holding

The intended defendants were lead agencies in the MPDP and SGR projects, may be reasonably affected by the litigation, and their joinder is necessary for complete and effectual determination of all questions in the suit.

Reasoning

Applying Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the Supreme Court's guidance in Communications Commission of Kenya v Royal Media Services, the court held that parties necessary for complete adjudication should be joined. Kenya Railways and KeNHA were extensively mentioned in pleadings and evidence and their roles in the projects relate directly to the compensation claim, so no prejudice would be suffered by the existing parties.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • Parties who should be made parties to a suit are persons necessary for a complete and effectual adjudication of disputes before the court.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Kenya Railways Corporation and Kenya National Highways Authority be enjoined as the 3rd and 4th Defendants respectively in the suit
  2. 2.Leave granted to the parties to amend their pleadings to capture the joinder of Kenya Railways Corporation and Kenya National Highways Authority as the 3rd and 4th Defendants
  3. 3.Costs of the application to be in the cause

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159
  • Environment and Land Court Act, 2011Sections 3 and 19
  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 63(e) & 100
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 1 Rule 10(2)(4) & (25); Order 8 Rule 3
  • Land Act, 2012Not specified
  • Land Acquisition Act, Cap 295 (Now Repealed)Not specified

Cases cited (3)

  • Communications Commission of Kenya and 4 Others vs Royal Media Services Limited & 7 Others
    Petition No. 15 of 2014 (eKLR)
  • Mumo Matemo case
  • Meme v. Republic
    [2004] 1 EA 124
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159 of the Constitution; Sections 3 and 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act, 2011; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 63(e) & 100 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 1 Rule 10(2)(4) & (25) and Order 8 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Curly Wurly Limited & 3 others v Kenya Ports Authoriiy & 3 others (Environment & Land Case 200'B' of 2021) [2024] KEELC 6139 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6139/eng@2024-09-24

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