[2020] KEHC 8326 (KLR)
The court found that the proposed Interested Party, Idha Mbarak Ali, has a sufficient interest in the subject property at the heart of the proceedings, as acknowledged by the Ex parte Applicant in his own affidavit. This interest is adequate to justify his joinder to the judicial review proceedings. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 8326 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Abraham Ngugi Njoroge; Respondent: Director of Public Prosecution; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General; Respondent: Director of Criminal Investigations; Interested Party: Idha Mbarak Ali
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Judicial Review 17 of 2018
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review / Ruling on Application for Joinder of Interested Party
- Outcome
- application for joinder allowed
- Judges
- DO Ogembo
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Judicial Review Procedure, Fair Administrative Action, Prosecutorial Discretion
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Abraham Ngugi Njoroge
Applicant
Director of Public Prosecution
Respondent
The Hon. Attorney General
Respondent
Director of Criminal Investigations
Respondent
Idha Mbarak Ali
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Ruling on Application for Joinder of Interested Party
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the proposed Interested Party should be joined to the judicial review proceedings.
- 2 Whether the proposed Interested Party has demonstrated sufficient interest in the subject matter to warrant joinder.
- 3 Whether the joinder would cause confusion or prejudice to the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the proposed Interested Party, Idha Mbarak Ali, has a sufficient interest in the subject property at the heart of the proceedings, as acknowledged by the Ex parte Applicant in his own affidavit. This interest is adequate to justify his joinder to the judicial review proceedings. The court emphasized that the purpose of joinder is to ensure that all parties with a legitimate interest are present to assist the court in reaching a just decision and to avoid multiplicity of suits. There was no evidence that the joinder would cause confusion or prejudice to the proceedings. Accordingly, the application for joinder was allowed, with costs in the cause, and the Ex parte...
Court Disposition
application for joinder allowed
Orders
- The application for joinder of Idha Mbarak Ali as Interested Party is allowed with costs in the cause.
- The Ex parte Applicant shall serve the proposed Interested Party with proceedings in this matter within two days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MOMBASA
CONSTITUTIONAL & JUDICIAL REVIEW DIVISION
JUDICIAL REVIEW NO. 17 OF 2018
IN THE MATTER OF: AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW FOR ORDERS OF CERTIORARI AND PROHIBITION UNDER SECTIONS 8 AND 9 OF THE LAW REFORMS ACT CHAPTER 26 OF THE LAWS OF KENYA AND ORDER 53 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ACT NO. 4 OF 2015
AND
IN THE MATTER OF: THE THREATENED/UNLAWFUL ARREST OF ABRAHAM NGUGI NJOROGE
BETWEEN
ABRAHAM NGUGI NJOROGE........................................................APPLICANT
AND
1. DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTION
2. THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL
3. DIRECTOR OF CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIONS.................RESPONDENTS
AND
IDHA MBARAK ALI...........................................................INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
1. The Chamber Summons before the court is dated 29/10/19, filed by the proposed Interested Party Idha Mbarak Ali who seeks orders that he be joined to these proceedings.
2. The application is supported by all the Respondents.
3. However, the Ex parte Applicant has opposed the application through a Replying Affidavit sworn by the Ex parte Applicant on 9/12/19.
4. The Ex parte Applicant’s case is that the Applicant has not demonstrated what input and value he will add to the proceedings since the irregularities and procedural flaws outlined in the Ex parte Applicant’s application were committed by the Respondents and not the Applicant herein; that the Applicant has not demonstrated that the orders being sought in the substantive application dated 20/3/18 will directly affect him; that the application by the Applicant is incompetent, frivolous and a waste of judicial time since the crux of the application is to determine ownership of KWALE/DIANI COMPLEX/235; that this court does not have the jurisdiction to grant/determine dispute as to ownership of the subject property; that the basis of the substantive application is to quash the charges preferred against the Applicant in Criminal Case at Kwale which are scheduled to be withdrawn under Section 87 (a) of the Criminal Procedure Code for lack of proper and thorough investigations after the directive from the 1st Respondent to the 3rd Respondent; that the proposed Interested Party has threatened, intimidated and coerced both the 1st and 3rd Respondents’ officers handling the investigation file to sustain the illegal charges by bragging of his close and personal relationship with the Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr. Nordin Haji, and has on several occasions threatened prosecution counsel handling the file and who have directed the County Criminal Investigations Officer to withdraw the charges for poor investigations with dire consequences and that the proposed Interested Party is a busy body who is avoiding being investigated by attempting to legitimize his title deed by ensuring the Applicant is charged with criminal offence.
The Determination
5. The jurisprudence behind the joining of a party to proceedings is firstly that the new party may help the court to arrive at a just decision due to the information that the new party may have, and which may not presently be before the court. The second reason is so that a multiplicity of proceedings maybe avoided. On the face of it therefore, a party wishing to join proceedings cannot be denied the prayer sought unless the court is satisfied that such joinder is likely to cause confusion in the proceedings.
6. I have looked at the Replying Affidavit by the Ex parte Applicant. There is no doubt from that affidavit that the Ex parte Applicant himself acknowledges that the Applicant has an interest in the suit property. That interest is enough for this court to admit the Applicant to these proceedings. Therefore, the application before the court is allowed with costs in the cause. The Ex parte Applicant shall serve the proposed Interested Party with proceedings in this matter within two (2) days.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Mombasa this 16th day of January, 2020.
E. K. OGOLA
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Mr. Wangila for Interested Party
Mr. Fedha for DPP
Ms. Kisingo holding brief Mungai for Respondent
Mr. Kaunda Court Assistant