[2011] KEHC 2822 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 2822 (KLR)

The court found that there were two distinct contracts: one between the applicant and the plaintiff, and another between the plaintiff and the defendant. There was no privity of contract between the applicant and the defendant. As such, the applicant could not be joined as a party to the current suit. The proper...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] KEHC 2822 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Alex Otuke Ondimu; Defendant: Yuasa International Limited; Applicant: __MISSING__
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 249 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Joinder of Parties
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
MJA Emukule
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Privity of Contract, Separate Contracts
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Joinder of Parties Privity of Contract Separate Contracts

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alex Otuke Ondimu

Plaintiff

Yuasa International Limited

Defendant

__MISSING__

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Joinder of Parties

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be joined as a party to the suit.
  2. 2 Whether there is privity of contract between the defendant and the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there were two distinct contracts: one between the applicant and the plaintiff, and another between the plaintiff and the defendant. There was no privity of contract between the applicant and the defendant. As such, the applicant could not be joined as a party to the current suit. The proper course for the applicant would be to file a separate suit to enforce their contract with the plaintiff, and possibly include the defendant as a precautionary measure if repossession of motor vehicles became an issue. The application for joinder was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The applicant's application dated 29th December, 2010 is dismissed.
  • Each party to bear its own costs.