Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedChamber Summons dated 19th June, 2023 (further amended plaint dated 21st March, 2022)

Matuva v Aimi Ma Kilungu Limited & another (Environment & Land Case 63 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 3599 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
8 May 2025
EOE. O. Obaga
1,511 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

#

A Kenyan land court ruled that a registered property owner cannot be removed from a lawsuit where the orders sought could affect her ownership rights.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court (E. O. Obaga, J) determined a Chamber Summons dated 19th June 2023 by which the 2nd Defendant, Nazima Malik, sought her own striking out from the suit under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. She argued that the further amended plaint disclosed no cause of action against her, that she neither held the title to the suit property nor was in possession of it, and that no relief was sought from her. The Plaintiff opposed, contending that the 1st Defendant had entered into a sale agreement with the 2nd Defendant and illegally sold the suit property to her, and exhibited a letter confirming the property measuring approximately 4.466 hectares was registered in the 2nd Defendant's name. The court framed a single issue: whether the 2nd Defendant had demonstrated merit in the striking-out application. Applying the Werrot two-test definition of a necessary party and the Court of Appeal's adoption in Pravin Bowry of the Deported Asians Custodian Board criteria, the court held that the Plaintiff's prayers for a permanent injunction and registration as proprietor were substantive orders that could prejudice the 2nd Defendant's proprietary interests. Her presence was therefore necessary for effectual and complete adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of suits. The application was dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff on 8th May 2025.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the 2nd Defendant has demonstrated merit in the application for striking out of the 2nd Defendant

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the 2nd Defendant should be struck out as an improperly joined party under Order 1 Rule 10(2)

Holding

Application dismissed; the 2nd Defendant is a necessary party because the substantive orders sought (permanent injunction and registration as proprietor) would affect her proprietary interest in the suit property

Reasoning

The plaint alleged the 1st Defendant entered into a sale agreement with the 2nd Defendant and illegally sold the suit property to her, and a letter confirmed the property is registered in her name. Since the Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction and registration as proprietor, orders which would prejudice the 2nd Defendant, her presence is necessary for effectual and complete adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of suits.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Two tests for a necessary party: right to relief against the party and ability to pass an effective decree in their absence
  • A party whose interests would be affected by the orders sought is properly joined to enable effectual and complete adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of suits

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Application dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

EO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 1 Rules 10(2) and 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Relief refused

#

Striking out the 2nd Defendant from the suit

Application devoid of merit; substantive orders sought against Defendants may prejudice the 2nd Defendant whose presence is necessary for effectual and complete adjudication

p. 4

Costs

Application dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff

Quotable passages

#

Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.

These are substantive orders which ultimately may prejudice the 2nd Defendant if she is not a party to these proceedings and therefore, her presence is necessary for purposes of defending her proprietary interest in the suit property.
p. 3necessary party
It is therefore in the interest of efiectual and complete adjudication of the dispute herein that the 2nd Defendant should remain a party to the proceedings.
p. 4joinder rationale
In the end, I find that the application herein is devoid of merit and is dismissed with costs to the Plaintifi.
p. 4disposition

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Matuva v Aimi Ma Kilungu Limited & another (Environment & Land Case 63 of 2018) [2025] KEELC 3599 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Chamber Summons dated 19th June, 2023 (further amended plaint dated 21st March, 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/3599/eng@2025-05-08

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