Korir v Barmalel & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6445 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court

30 September 2025

MMM.N MWANYALE

642 words in judgment

View original judgment Read on Kenya Law Watch case

AI-assisted case brief

·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

A Kenyan court dismissed a request to bring extra parties into a land dispute because they were already part of the case through a counterclaim.

What this practically means

Executive summary

This Environment and Land Court at Kilgoris ruling by Hon. M.N Mwanyale, Judge, determined an unopposed Chamber Summons application dated 17.03.2025 in which the Defendants sought leave to issue a third party notice against Leah Chepkirui Barmalel and the Land Registrar Kilgoris under Order 1 Rules 14 and 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Defendants pleaded that the mother title, registered in the name of the late Paul Tamason Barmalel who died intestate, was unlawfully transferred and subdivided by Leah Chepkirui Barmalel, who allegedly excluded her children as beneficiaries and sold 90% of the estate; they sought indemnity from her and alleged that the Land Registrar failed to verify ownership, effected illegal subdivision and registration, and failed to maintain proper records. Although unopposed, the court directed that the application be argued orally on its merits, which occurred on 30.06.2025. The court held that Order 1 Rules 14 and 15 permit a third party notice only where a defendant claims contribution or indemnity from a party not already in the suit. The Defendants' Amended Defence and Counter-claim of 3rd November 2023 had already joined Leah Chepkirui Barmalel as 1st Defendant and the Land Registrar as 3rd Defendant, with reliefs sought against both. A third party notice against persons already parties was therefore unnecessary and offended Order 15(1). The application was dismissed with costs in the cause.

Key legal issues

Whether a 3rd party notice may issue against persons already joined to the suit by counter-claim

Holding

It may not; the application was unnecessary because the intended third parties were already parties to the suit as defendants in the counter-claim

Reasoning

The court noted that the Amended Defence and Counter-claim of 3rd November 2023 had already introduced Leah Chepkirui Barmalel as the 1st Defendant and the Land Registrar as the 3rd Defendant, with reliefs sought against both. Since Order 1 Rules 14 and 15 apply only where contribution or indemnity is sought from a party not already in the suit, issuing a third party notice against parties already before the court would offend Order 15(1) and serve no purpose. The application therefore lacked merit and was dismissed with costs in the cause.

p. 2

Whether the Defendants' pleaded fraud and indemnity claims justified joinder of the intended third parties

Holding

The fraud allegations were already pleaded in the Amended Defence and notice of intention to issue third party notice had been given, but this did not warrant a third party notice against persons already parties

Reasoning

Paragraphs 6 and 12 of the Amended Defence pleaded the fraud set out in the draft third party notice and gave notice of intention to issue it against the administrators of the Estate of Paul Tamason Barmalel, being the first intended third party. However, the same persons had already been brought in as defendants through the amended defence and counter-claim, rendering the notice duplicative and impermissible under Order 15(1).

p. 2

Legal principles established

A third party notice may only issue where a defendant claims contribution or indemnity from a party not already before the court; where the intended third party is already joined via counter-claim, a third party notice is unnecessary

Court orders

1.The Chamber Summons application dated 17.03.2025 seeking leave to issue a 3rd Party Notice is dismissed for lacking merit
2.Costs in the cause

Authorities

Legislation

Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 Rules 14 and 15
Civil Procedure RulesOrder 15(1)

Jurisdiction invoked: Order 1 Rules 14 and 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

Practical implications

Frequently asked questions

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Korir v Barmalel & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6445 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6445/eng@2025-09-30

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