Kenya Judgment

High Court · High Court at Nakuru

Anthony Kipkoske Kimeto v Dickson A. Rono,David A. Rono,Veronica Sigiro,Paul Chebusit,Paul A. Sura,Philip A. Sigilal,Daniel A. Sigilal,David A. Sigilal,Benjamin A. Sigilal,Obot Nora Seron,Kiptangus A. Busienei,Samuel A. Towet,Wison A. Towet,Robert Kiprotich & Thomas Maiwa [2017] KEHC 5571 (KLR)

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

The court found that the suit property, as stated in the plaint and evidenced by the Greencard and official search, is NAROK/CIS-MARA/ILMOTIOK/468, registered in the name of the plaintiff, Anthony Kipkoske Kimeto. The applicants failed to provide any documentary evidence linking their claimed property, NAROK/CIS-MARA/ILMOTIOK/2444, to the suit property or to demonstrate any legal interest in the land subject to the proceedings. The court determined that the proposed party, David Lamalampa Ole Yaile, has no interest in the suit property and that the application for enjoinment and stay was without merit and constituted a further attempt to delay the finalization of the case. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.

Court disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 11th April 2017 is dismissed with costs.
  • No enjoinment of David Lamalampa Ole Yaile as a party to the proceedings.
  • No stay of proceedings granted.

02

Material facts

Parties

Anthony Kipkoske Kimeto

Plaintiff

Dickson A. Rono

Defendant

David A. Rono

Defendant

Veronica Sigiro

Defendant

Paul Chebusit

Defendant

Paul A. Sura

Defendant

Philip A. Sigilal

Defendant

Daniel A. Sigilal

Defendant

David A. Sigilal

Defendant

Benjamin A. Sigilal

Defendant

Mrs. Obot Nora Seron

Defendant

Kiptangus A. Busienei

Defendant

Samuel A. Towet

Defendant

Wison A. Towet

Defendant

Robert Kiprotich

Defendant

Thomas Maiwa

Defendant

Amounts and remedies

  • Charge to National Bank of Kenya: KES 1,980,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Enjoinment and Stay

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
The applicants, being purchasers for value of portions of land within NAROK/CIS–MARA/ILMOTIOK/2444, claim that David Lamalampa Ole Yaile, as administrator of the estate of Indeyo Ole Yaile (deceased), is the registered proprietor of the land and should be enjoined as a necessary party. They argue that his participation is essential to clarify the family's position regarding the land and to resolve the dispute over ownership, as the applicants are in occupation and have developed the land with the family's consent.
Respondent
The plaintiff opposes the application, arguing that the suit property is NAROK/CIS-MARA/ILMOTIOK/468, not 2444 or 378, and that the proposed party has no interest in the suit land. The plaintiff asserts that the suit land has never been subdivided, as evidenced by the Greencard and official search, and that the application is a tactic to delay the conclusion of the case.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules

    A party may only be enjoined in proceedings if they have a direct interest in the subject matter of the suit.

  2. 02

    Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act

    Litigation must come to an end and applications that serve only to delay proceedings should not be entertained.

  3. 03

    Land Registration Act; evidenced by Greencard and official search

    The registered proprietor of land is the person whose name appears in the register and holds title to the property.

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

The court found that the suit property, as stated in the plaint and evidenced by the Greencard and official search, is NAROK/CIS-MARA/ILMOTIOK/468, registered in the name of the plaintiff, Anthony Kipkoske Kimeto. The applicants failed to provide any documentary evidence linking their claimed property, NAROK/CIS-MARA/ILMOTIOK/2444, to the suit property or to demonstrate any legal interest in the land subject to the proceedings. The court determined that the proposed party, David Lamalampa Ole Yaile, has no interest in the suit property and that the application for enjoinment and stay was without merit and constituted a further attempt to delay the finalization of the case. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.

Obiter and limits

  • Litigation has to come to an end and the court will not entertain tactics aimed at delaying the conclusion of cases.
  • Applicants must demonstrate a direct and legal interest in the subject matter to be enjoined as parties.

Court disposition

application dismissed with costs

  • The application dated 11th April 2017 is dismissed with costs.
  • No enjoinment of David Lamalampa Ole Yaile as a party to the proceedings.
  • No stay of proceedings granted.

Source and reliance status

High Court

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

High Court

Judgment

[2017] KEHC 5571 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU

CIVIL CASE NUMBER 78 OF 2007

ANTHONY KIPKOSKE KIMETO..........................................PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

DICKSON A. RONO ..................................................1ST DEFENDANT

DAVID A. RONO..........................................................2ND DEFENDANT

VERONICA SIGIRO....................................................3RD DEFENDANT

PAUL CHEBUSIT..........................................................4TH DEFENDANT

PAUL A. SURA..............................................................5TH DEFENDANT

PHILIP A. SIGILAL........................................................6TH DEFENDANT

DANIEL A. SIGILAL.......................................................7TH DEFENDANT

DAVID A. SIGILAL..........................................................8TH DEFENDANT

BENJAMIN A. SIGILAL..................................................9TH DEFENDANT

MRS.OBOT NORA SERON.........................................10TH DEFENDANT

KIPTANGUS A. BUSIENEI............................................11TH DEFENDANT

SAMUEL A. TOWET.....................................................12TH DEFENDANT

WISON A. TOWET........................................................13TH DEFENDANT

ROBERT KIPROTICH...................................................14TH DEFENDANT

THOMAS MAIWA..........................................................15TH DEFENDANT

RULING

1. This case was filed on the 16th April 2007. The defendants filed their respective defences in June 2007 and upon complying with pretrial requirements, hearing of the plaintiff's case commenced before the Honourable Justice Maraga (as he then was) and finalised on the 13th May 2009. The case was consolidated with HCCC No. 97 of 2008 by order of the court dated the 17th September 2009.

2. On the 16th July 2015, when this court took over the hearing, the court was told by the plaintiffs advocates thatP defendants No. 4 and 5 entered no appearance nor filed their defences while Defendants No.1 and 2 entered into a consent and removed themselves from the case. The defendants left in the case are therefore Numbers 3, 6, 7,8 ,9 and 10.

PW2 and PW3 testified and closed their case on the 16th July 2015.

3. The court with consent of parties gave numerous defence hearing dates but for one reason or the other, the defence evidence is yet to be taken. When the suit came up for hearing of the defence case on the 11th April 2017, the court was informed that the defendants have filed an application that ought to be heard before the defence case can commence.

4. The application is dated the 11th April 2017. A hearing date for the application was taken for the 25th April 2017. Parties urged the court to determine the application on the affidavit evidence as filed by the applicants and the replying affidavit filed by the respondent.

5. The Notice of Motion dated 11th April 2017 is filed by the Defendants under the provisions of Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 1 Rule 10, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. They seek orders that:

(i) David Lamalampa Ole Yaile, the Administrator of the Estate of Indeyo Ole Yaile (deceased) herein be enjoined as a necessary party in the matter.

(ii) There be a stay of further proceedings herein hearing and determination of the application.

(iii) This Honourable court be pleased to make such other or further orders that it may deem fit and just to grant.

(iv) That costs of the application be in the cause.

6. The grounds upon which the application is grounded are that the applicants are purchasers for value of distinct and separate portions of land within parcel of land known as NAROK/CIS–MARA/ILMOTIOK/2444 which was curved out of land parcel known as NAROK CIS–MARA/ILMOTIOK/378previously registered in the names of Indeyo Ole Yaile deceased.

7. That the defendants (3, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10) are each in occupation where they have substantial developments with the consent of the family of Indeyo Ole Yaile (deceased) and they seek to enjoin David Lamalampa Ole Yaile the administrator of the estate, who remains the registered proprietor of all the land known as NAROK/CIS–MARA/ILMOTIOK/2444 as a necessary party in the proceedings.

8. It is alleged that the intended party's claim as the proprietor of the parcel of Land 2444 purporting that it is the same and as his land parcel known as NAROK/CIS-MARA/ILMOTIOK/468 is fraudulent and unlawful.

The applicants state that the said David Lamalampa if enjoined will clarify the family's position in respect of their land parcel registered in the late Indeyo Ole Yaile deceased's name. The 3rd defendant has sworn the supporting affidavit.

9. The application is opposed and a Replying Affidavit to that effect was sworn on the 11th April 2017 and filed on the 12th April 2017 by the plaintiff.

He depones that the subject suit property in this suit is Parcel No. NAROK/CIS-MARA/ILMOTIOK/378and notNAROK/CIS-MARA/ILMOTIOK/2444or468that the plaintiffs lay claim on.

10. That as the land parcels are different, the proposed party for enjoinment to the proceedings has no interest in the suit land. It is further deponed that the suit land had never been sub-divided and has annexed as exhibit the suit property Greencard and marked “AKKI.”

He depones that this application is yet another attempt to delay the conclusion of the case.

11. I have considered the affidavit evidence by both parties.

The suit property as stated in the plaint dated the 13th April 2007 is NAROK/CIS-MARA/ILMOTIOK 468measuring approximately 44. 0 Hectares. I have seen the Greencard and a search certificate over this land parcel. It is registered in the names of Antony Kipkoske Kimeto.

The Green card shows that he was so registered on the 16th December 1988 and a Title issued on the same day.

12. The Greencard further shows that the 1st registered owner was Patrick Seki on the 11th September 1980 and several Charges were registered against the title on various dates the latest being on the 13th May 1993 to National Bank of Kenya to secure a sum of Kshs.1,980,000/=. The official search conducted on the 6th October 2008 confirms the Charge to National Bank of Kenya which is yet to be discharged as the record shows.

13. The suit property, the applicants and defendants claim to have been owned by the deceased is NAROK/CIS-MARA/ILMOTIOK/2444. It is not the same as the plaintiff's suit property. They have not provided the court with the title document or the Greencard or even a search certificate to confirm ownership or even subdivision from any other land parcel. They have not demonstrated any interest on Land Parcel NAROK/CIS-MARA/ ILMOTIOK/468, the suit property. I find no relevance or similarity of these two land parcels to the suit property.

I agree with the plaintiff's averments that this application is but a further tactic to delay the finalization of the suit that has been in court for 20 years. Litigation has to come to an end.

14. In the premises, I find no merit in the application dated 11th April 2017. It is dismissed with costs.

Dated, Signed and Delivered this 8th Day May of 2017.

J.N. MULWA

JUDGE

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Civil Procedure Act (Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 63)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Civil Procedure Rules (Order 1 Rule 10, Order 51 Rule 1)

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Land Registration Act

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.