[2013] KEHC 5851 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, as the original seller of the suit land and a party to the sale agreement with the defendant, has a direct interest in the subject matter of the dispute. The applicant's involvement is necessary to assist the court in determining critical issues, including the reduction of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 5851 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Aggrey Aluzimbi Shikali; Defendant: Richard Chesire Cherop; Applicant: __MISSING__
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 21 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Joinder of Party as Defendant
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- EO Obaga
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Sale of Land, Land Ownership Disputes
- 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
Aggrey Aluzimbi Shikali
Plaintiff
Richard Chesire Cherop
Defendant
__MISSING__
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Joinder of Party as Defendant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be joined as a defendant in the suit.
- 2 Whether the applicant's presence is necessary for the determination of the dispute regarding the suit property.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, as the original seller of the suit land and a party to the sale agreement with the defendant, has a direct interest in the subject matter of the dispute. The applicant's involvement is necessary to assist the court in determining critical issues, including the reduction of the defendant's land from 2 acres to 1.4 acres and whether the applicant retained a 0.5-acre portion entrusted to the defendant. The court noted that the parties had previously involved the applicant in a consent to conduct a survey, indicating recognition of her interest. Therefore, the applicant's joinder as a defendant is warranted to enable the court to effectively resolve all...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The applicant is joined as a defendant in the suit.
- The plaint is to be amended and served on the 2nd defendant within 14 days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE
CIVIL SUIT NO. 21 OF 2007
AGGREY ALUZIMBI SHIKALI..........................….............................. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RICHARD CHESIRE CHEROP ....................................................... DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The Applicant brought the application herein seeking to be joined as a Defendant in this case. The Applicant contends that she is the one who sold the suit property to the Defendant. The Applicant contends that the suit land was 2 ½ acres and was originally known as Plot No. 216. It was part of the agreement that the Defendant was to have 2 acres and take care of the other half on behalf of the Applicant. The Applicant learnt that the Plaintiff/Respondent is claiming the same land from the Defendant. as well as her ½ acre which the Defendant was holding on her behalf.
The application was supported by the Defendant but opposed by the Plaintiff/Respondent who contends that the Applicant has no reason to be joined as a Defendant as her interest ended when she sold the land to the Defendant. The Respondent contends that the Applicant can be called as a witness to the Defendant and or be made a third party.
I have considered the application by the Applicant and the objection to the same by the Plaintiff/Respondent. There is no doubt that the Applicant is the one who sold land to the Defendant. The Applicant has annexed a sale agreement between her and the Defendant. The agreement shows that she sold two acres to the Defendant. When this dispute arose, the parties herein, that is the Plaintiff and the Respondent agreed that they send a surveyor to the ground to ascertain the respective acreage of Plot No. 293 and 294. The parties also involved the Applicant in the consent. It is therefore clear that the parties knew that the presence of the Applicant during the survey was important. The Plaintiff/Respondent cannot again turn around to say that her presence in the suit is of no assistance to the Court. The presence of the Applicant in the suit is necessary to assist the Court determine certain issues for instance how the Defendant's land was reduced to 1. 4 acres when he was sold 2 acres by the Applicant. The presence of the Applicant will also assist the Court determine whether the Applicant remained with ½ an acre which she entrusted the Defendant to take care of. I find that the application has merits. The same is allowed with costs to the Applicant. Plaint to be amended and served on the 2nd Defendant within 14 days.
Dated, signed and delivered in Open Court on this 20th day of June, 2013.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
In the presence of Mr. Bungei for Mr. Yano for the Defendant and Plaintiff.
Court Clerk: Joan.
E. OBAGA
JUDGE
20/06/2013