High Court 11619 of 2019

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT ELC NO. 58 OF 2015 ANN AUMA KHASEKE ....................................................1 ST APPLICANT MOSES OKELLO KHASEKE .........................................2 ND APPLICANT CHARLES ODUNDO KHASEKE ...................................3RD APPLICANT = VERSUS = VINCENT KHASEKE ...................................................1 ST RESPONDENT JOSEPH KHASEKE......................................................2 ND RESPONDENT FRANCIS MACKIDY KHASEKE ............................. 3RD RESPONDENT MARTIN KHASEKE.....................................................4 TH RESPONDENT FREDRICK KHASEKE ...............................................5 TH RESPONDENT = AND = ALFRED KHASEKE.........................................................1 ST DEFENDANT LINUS KHASEKE.............................................................2 ND DEFENDANT EDWIN KHASEKE ..........................................................3 RD DEFENDANT RULING 1. The application giving rise to this ruling is a Notice of Motion dated 11/1/2018 and filed in court on the same date. It is stated to be brought under Order 1 (3) of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. The Applicants – ANN AUMA KHASEKE, MOSES OKELLO KHASEKE and CHARLES ODUNDO KHASEKE – are not yet parties to the suit but now want to be enjoined as interested parties (prayer b). The Applicants are apprehensive that the court may issue orders that might affect them yet they are not parties to the case. 2. The parties to the suit are VINCENT KHASEKE, JOSEPH BARASA, FRANCIS MACKIDY KHASEKE, FREDRICK KHASEKE and MARTIN KHASEKE, as Plaintiffs, while ALFRED KHASEKE, LINUS ANGEDI and EDWIN OGINGA KHASEKE are Defendants. It seems clear to me that this is essentially a family land feud. The Disputants are KHASEKEs and those seeking to be enjoined are KHASEKEs too. They are apprehensive that orders affecting them may be made. I understand their fears. If they were not KHASEKE’s, I would perhaps not readily understand why they want to join the suit. But they seem to be members of the larger KHASEKE’s family. The parcels of land in dispute are subdivisions of one original whole – said to be parcel No. 63 – which was subdivided in a manner that seems to have left some dissatisfied. 3. Having looked at the application, the response made, and the rival submissions, I am convinced that the interests of justice are better served by allowing the Applicants to join as parties. That way, a more inclusive judgement will be rendered. Locking the proposed interested parties out of the suit may likely give rise to yet another suit involving the parcels of land in dispute.

page 1 of 2