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 the judgment (Mombasa ELC suit; Notice of Motion dated 19th February 2024)· [2024] KEELC 6462 (KLR)

Shede v Mweri & 5 others; Okoth (Intended Defendant) (Environment & Land Case 196 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 6462 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
24 September 2024
8,517 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~34 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Mombasa Environment and Land Court set aside a land judgment because it affected an owner who was never joined or heard in the case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa (L.L. Naikuni, J) determined a Notice of Motion dated 19th February 2024 by Benard Otieno Okoth, an Intended Defendant, seeking review and setting aside of the court's judgment of 31st October 2023 and decree of 18th December 2023, which had ordered vacant possession and eviction from plots 2847/VI/MN, 2848/VI/MN, 2851/VI/MN, 2852/VI/MN and 2853/VI/MN in favour of the Plaintiff. The Applicant, claiming to be the legal, registered and beneficial owner of land derived from mother title LR 2846/VI/MN through a certificate of confirmation of grant in favour of his late mother Elizabeth Auma Agunda, averred he was never served or joined as a defendant. The Plaintiff opposed, contending the Applicant's parcels were distinct from the suit properties, that the Applicant was not in occupation, and that prior Mombasa judgments (HCC(OS) 188 of 1995 and HCC 121 of 2009) contradicted his claims. Framing three issues - merit, entitlement to reliefs and costs - the court applied Articles 25(c), 47 and 50(1) of the Constitution on fair hearing, Order 1 Rule 10(2) on joinder, and Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act with Order 45 on review. It found the Applicant a necessary party with an identifiable interest, noted a web of conflicting grants and orders from courts of concurrent jurisdiction, and held the judgment was irregular, unfair and unconstitutional in adversely affecting the Applicant unheard. The court set aside the proceedings, judgment and decree unconditionally, allowed joinder, gave the joined Defendant 21 days to file pleadings, ordered thrown away costs of Kshs. 120,000 to the Plaintiff, and awarded the application costs to the Intended Defendant, directing the suit be heard afresh.

Key legal issues

#
01

Joinder of an Intended Defendant not party to the original suit

Holding

The joinder is necessary because the Applicant claims ownership of the suit land and his presence is needed to effectually and completely adjudicate all questions

Reasoning

The court applied the two-limbed test: whether the applicant has an identifiable interest in the subject matter, or is a necessary party whose presence enables the court to completely settle all questions. Guided by Order 1 Rules 3 and 10(2), the Meme v Republic criteria and the Supreme Court's interested-party test in Communications Commission of Kenya, the court found the Applicant's proprietary claims and absence from the proceedings sufficient to warrant joinder as a Defendant.

p. 9
02

Whether the judgment of 31st October 2023 and decree of 18th December 2023 should be reviewed and set aside

Holding

Yes - the judgment was irregular, unfair and unconstitutional as it adversely affected the Intended Defendant without hearing him, and the grounds in Order 45 were satisfied

Reasoning

Applying Section 80 and Order 45, the court distilled three conditions: discovery of new and important matter, information not within knowledge when the decree was passed, and any other sufficient reason. Noting the Applicant was never served or joined despite claiming ownership, and the existence of conflicting certificates of confirmation of grant and court orders over the same plots, the court held a full trial was needed to untangle the inconsistencies; the judgment was unconstitutional in its effect on the Applicant's property rights.

p. 15
03

Costs of the application

Holding

Costs of the application to the Intended Defendant; but he must pay the Plaintiff thrown away costs of Kshs. 120,000

Reasoning

Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that costs follow the event unless there is good reason to depart. Having found sufficient reason to set aside the judgment, the court awarded the application costs to the Intended Defendant, but also ordered him to pay thrown away costs to the Plaintiff for the inconvenience caused by his non-involvement from the outset.

p. 16

Legal principles established

#
  • A court becomes functus officio after judgment but may review its own decision under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules on limited grounds, without unreasonable delay
  • A review is confined to error apparent on the face of the record and is not an appeal
  • A party with an identifiable stake in the subject matter whose presence is necessary for complete adjudication should be joined under Order 1 Rule 10(2)

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The proceedings, the Judgment dated 31st October 2023 and the resultant decree issued on 18th December 2023 are unconditionally reversed and/or set aside
  2. 2.The Intended Defendant is granted leave to join the proceedings as a Defendant and the pleadings be amended to reflect as such
  3. 3.The Intended Defendant is granted 21 days to file and fully comply with Orders 6, 7 and 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
  4. 4.The Intended Defendant to pay thrown away costs of Kshs. 120,000.00 to the Plaintiff before the next mention date
  5. 5.Mention on 6th November 2024 for Pre-Trial Conference; matter to be heard and finalized on 9th December 2024
  6. 6.Costs of the application awarded to the Intended Defendant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21Section 3A
  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21Section 63(e)
  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21Section 80
  • Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21Section 27
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 45
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 45 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 51(1)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 1 Rule 10(2)
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Order 1 Rule 3
  • Civil Procedure Rules, 2010Orders 6, 7 and 11
  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Articles 25(c), 47 and 50(1)
  • Land Act, No. 6 of 2012Section 152E; Section 38
  • Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012Not specified
  • Laws of Contract, Cap 23Not specified

Cases cited (17)

  • Zablon Mokua v Solomon M. Choti & 3 Others
    (2016) eKLR
  • Omboko v Speaker & Chairperson of Busia County Assembly Service Board & 6 others
    (Petition E005 of 2020) [2022] KEELRC 14695 (KLR)
  • Habiba W Ramadhan & 7 others v Mary Njeri Gitiba
    (2017) eKLR; Nairobi High Court ELC Case No 119 of 2014
  • Communications Commission of Kenya & 4 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 7 others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Meme v Republic
    [2004] 1 EA 124
  • Menginya Sahim Mugani v Kenya Revenue Authority
    (2014) eKLR
  • Republic v Public Procurement Administrative Review Board & 2 others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Sarder Mohamed v Charan Singh Nand Sing and Another
    (1959) EA 793
  • Sese (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of the Late Shali Sese) v Karezi & 8 others
    (Environment and Land Constitutional Petition 32 of 2020) [2023] KEELC 17427 (KLR)
  • Tokesi Mambili and others v Simion Litsanga
  • Republic v Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex parte Apollo Mboya
    [2019] eKLR; Nairobi JR Misc. Application No. 317 of 2018
  • Ajit Kumar Rath v State of Orisa
    (Supra)
  • Nyamongo & Nyamongo v Kogo
    [2001] EA 170
  • Evan Bwire v Andrew Aginda
    Civil Appeal No. 147 of 2006
  • Stephen Githua Kimani v Nancy Wanjira Waruingi T/A Providence Auctioneers
    (2016) eKLR
  • Phillip Chemwolo & Another v Augustine Kubede
    [1982-88] KLR 103
  • Republic v Rosemary Wairimu Munene, Ex-Parte Applicant v Ihururu Dairy Farmers Co-operative Society Limited
    Judicial Review application no 6 of 2014
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3A, 63(e) and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21; Orders 45 and 51(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (review of the court's own judgment)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Shede v Mweri & 5 others; Okoth (Intended Defendant) (Environment & Land Case 196 of 2019) [2024] KEELC 6462 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment (Mombasa ELC suit; Notice of Motion dated 19th February 2024). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6462/eng@2024-09-24

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