[2019] KEHC 11619 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants, being members of the Khaseke family and having a direct interest in the disputed subdivisions of parcel No. 63, were likely to be affected by any orders issued in the suit. Excluding them could result in further litigation over the same subject matter, undermining judicial...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 11619 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Ann Auma Khaseke; Applicant: Moses Okello Khaseke; Applicant: Charles Odundo Khaseke; Respondent: Vincent Khaseke; Respondent: Joseph Khaseke; Respondent: Francis Mackidy Khaseke; Respondent: Martin Khaseke; Respondent: Fredrick Khaseke; Defendant: Alfred Khaseke; Defendant: Linus Khaseke; Defendant: Edwin Khaseke
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 58 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Joinder as Interested Parties
- Outcome
- Application allowed; applicants to be enjoined as interested parties; no order as to costs.
- Judges
- A Kaniaru
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Family Land Disputes, Interested Party Status
- 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
Ann Auma Khaseke
Applicant
Moses Okello Khaseke
Applicant
Charles Odundo Khaseke
Applicant
Vincent Khaseke
Respondent
Joseph Khaseke
Respondent
Francis Mackidy Khaseke
Respondent
Martin Khaseke
Respondent
Fredrick Khaseke
Respondent
Alfred Khaseke
Defendant
Linus Khaseke
Defendant
Edwin Khaseke
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Joinder as Interested Parties
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicants should be enjoined as interested parties in the suit concerning family land subdivisions.
- 2 Whether failure to join the applicants would prejudice their interests or lead to multiplicity of suits.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants, being members of the Khaseke family and having a direct interest in the disputed subdivisions of parcel No. 63, were likely to be affected by any orders issued in the suit. Excluding them could result in further litigation over the same subject matter, undermining judicial economy and the interests of justice. The court held that their joinder as interested parties was necessary to ensure a comprehensive and inclusive determination of the dispute and to forestall the proliferation of related suits.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; applicants to be enjoined as interested parties; no order as to costs.
Orders
- The applicants are hereby enjoined as interested parties in the suit.
- There shall be no order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
ELCNO. 58 OF 2015
ANN AUMA KHASEKE ....................................................1ST APPLICANT
MOSES OKELLO KHASEKE .........................................2ND APPLICANT
CHARLES ODUNDO KHASEKE ...................................3RD APPLICANT
= VERSUS =
VINCENT KHASEKE ...................................................1ST RESPONDENT
JOSEPH KHASEKE......................................................2ND RESPONDENT
FRANCIS MACKIDY KHASEKE ............................. 3RD RESPONDENT
MARTIN KHASEKE.....................................................4TH RESPONDENT
FREDRICK KHASEKE ...............................................5TH RESPONDENT
= AND =
ALFRED KHASEKE.........................................................1ST DEFENDANT
LINUS KHASEKE.............................................................2ND DEFENDANT
EDWIN KHASEKE ..........................................................3RD DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
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 KHASEKEandCHARLES 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 areVINCENT KHASEKE, JOSEPH BARASA, FRANCIS MACKIDY KHASEKE, FREDRICK KHASEKEandMARTIN KHASEKE,as Plaintiffs, while ALFRED KHASEKE, LINUS ANGEDIandEDWIN 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.
4. With all this in mind, and noting that this matter itself is a consolidation of suits, and further realising that there is need to forestall proliferation of suits around the same subject matter, I allow the application in terms of prayer (b). The Applicants should therefore be enjoined as interested parties. There will be no order as to costs.
Dated, signed and delivered at Busia this 29th day of July 2019.
A. K. KANIARU
JUDGE
In the Presence of:
Applicants: Present
Respondents: Present
Defendants: Present
Counsel for the Applicants: Absent
Counsel for the Respondents: Present
Counsel for the Defendants: Present
Court Assistant: Nelson Odame