[2013] KEHC 6295 (KLR)
The court held that the discretion to enjoin a party as an interested party should be exercised where the presence of such a party is necessary for the complete and effectual adjudication of all questions involved in the suit. The applicant, Samuel Muroki, demonstrated that he may be directly affected by the outcome...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 6295 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Bakari Mohammed Abdulrehman; Defendant: Sadik Muchiku Imaana; Defendant: Samuel Muroki
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 788 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Environment Case / Ruling on Chamber Summons for Joinder of Interested Party
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- LN Gacheru
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Interested Party, Tenant Rights, Discretionary Orders
- 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
Bakari Mohammed Abdulrehman
Plaintiff
Sadik Muchiku Imaana
Defendant
Samuel Muroki
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Environment Case / Ruling on Chamber Summons for Joinder of Interested Party
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Samuel Muroki should be enjoined as an interested party in the suit.
- 2 Whether the presence of the applicant is necessary for the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved.
- 3 Whether enjoining the applicant would prejudice the plaintiff.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the discretion to enjoin a party as an interested party should be exercised where the presence of such a party is necessary for the complete and effectual adjudication of all questions involved in the suit. The applicant, Samuel Muroki, demonstrated that he may be directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings as a tenant in occupation of the premises in question. The court found that enjoining him would not prejudice the plaintiff and would serve the interests of justice. The court therefore allowed the application for joinder, granting the applicant liberty to file his replying affidavit within 14 days.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Samuel Muroki is hereby enjoined in the suit as a third party.
- The applicant is at liberty to file his replying affidavit within 14 days of the ruling.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
LAND & ENVIRONMENT CASE NO. 788 OF 2012
BAKARI MOHAMMED ABDULREHMAN...............PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
SADIK MUCHIKU IMAANA............................1ST DEFENDANT
SAMUEL MUROKI........................................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING.
This Court has been moved by way of Chamber Summons under Order 1 Rule 10(2), of the Civil Procedure Rules and Section 1A & 1B of the Civil Procedure Act,for an Orders that one Samuel Muroki be enjoined in this suit as an interested party and for costs of the application.
The application was supported by the grounds on the face of the application and also by the annexed Affidavit of Samuel Muroki. The grounds for the application are that; the applicant will be directly affected by any Orders issued in this suit as he is a Tenant in occupation and running business in the said premises; that no prejudice will be occasioned on any party should the Orders sought be granted and it is in the interest of justice that the Orders sought should be granted.
The application was opposed and one Bakari Mohammed Abdulrehmandeponed a Replying Affidavit in opposition to the said Chamber Summons. The Chamber Summons was canvassed through Written Submissions. I have carefully considered the Affidavits and the Written Submissions filed in Court in support of and in opposition of the said application. I have also considered the quoted law and the authorities cited herein.
The Court finds that, the sought Orders are discretionary in nature. The said Orders may be given at any stage of the proceedings. However, the basic consideration is whether, the presence of such a party may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved.
Considering all the materials, arguments and documents before me, some of the issues canvassed raises triable issues where evidence has to be adduced on whether interested party is a Tenant or not. The said issues cannot be addressed at this stage.
I find that, in enjoining the 3rd party herein may not be prejudicial to the Plaintiff and the same is for the interest of justice. The Court finds that, the applicant has presented a request with sufficient facts to justify his inclusion or joinder in the suit herein as an interested party. The Court therefore, allows the Chamber Summons dated 14/5/2013 as prayed.
The applicant is hereby enjoined in the suit as third party and is at liberty to file his Replying Affidavit within 14 days of today’s Ruling.
Costs in the Cause.
Dated, Signed and delivered at Nairobi this 19TH of July, 2013.
L .N. GACHERU
JUDGE
In the Presence of:-
.................................................For the Plaintiff
..................................................For the Defendant/Applicant
Anne: Court Clerk
L .N. GACHERU
JUDGE