[2023] KEELC 16757 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate or provide evidence of the specific parcels allegedly subdivided by the proposed respondents. The court reviewed the minutes and documents provided by the respondents and found no support for the applicant's assertions of fraudulent subdivision. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 16757 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Johnson Cheruiyot & 19 others; Respondent: Director of Kenya Forest Service & 2 others
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 85 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Joinder of Interested Parties
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- MN Kullow
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Group Ranch Dissolution, Land Adjudication, Subdivision of Land
- 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
Johnson Cheruiyot & 19 others
Applicant
Director of Kenya Forest Service & 2 others
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Joinder of Interested Parties
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant has established sufficient grounds to enjoin the proposed interested parties as respondents to the suit.
- 2 Whether the alleged subdivision of land by the proposed respondents was fraudulent or procedural.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate or provide evidence of the specific parcels allegedly subdivided by the proposed respondents. The court reviewed the minutes and documents provided by the respondents and found no support for the applicant's assertions of fraudulent subdivision. The application was based on unsubstantiated claims and innuendo, lacking the requisite evidentiary foundation to justify the joinder of the proposed interested parties. Consequently, the court held that the applicant had not met the legal threshold for joinder and dismissed the application with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated November 8, 2017 is dismissed with costs.
- The proposed interested parties are not enjoined to the suit.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Cheruiyot & 19 others v Director of Kenya Forest Service & 2 others (Environment & Land Case 85 of 2017) [2023] KEELC 16757 (KLR) (2 March 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 16757 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Narok
Environment & Land Case 85 of 2017
MN Kullow, J
March 2, 2023
Between
Johnson Cheruiyot & 19 others
Applicant
and
Director of Kenya Forest Service & 2 others
Respondent
Ruling
1. By Notice of Motion dated November 8, 2017, and filed under certificate of urgency. The Applicant sought the following orders;-a.That Sanja Ole Sankei, John Ole Sera, Samwel Malkwen,Chuma Joseph K Mutai, Sempele Ole Mateto,David Ole Sutenye Naiyo Ole Sirma, the County Land Registrar and Surveyor be enjoined as Interested party.
2. The application is based on the grounds that the proposed Interested Parties were carrying out fraudulent sub-division on the suit land beyond their boundaries and that they have infringed on the rights of the plaintiff.
3. The Applicant contends that the proposed respondent has started allocating themselves land which the Ogiek Community has been occupying.
4. The application was opposed by the Respondents by way of a Replying Affidavit sworn by the 8th Proposed Respondent. He averred that he was the former Chairman of the Defunct Enagishomi Group Ranch. He stated that the Applicant is inept and lacks merit and further that the same does not lay any grounds to enjoin him and the other as the proposed Respondents. He stated that the sub-division of the land by the Respondents was done procedurally and once the land was subdivided the Group Ranch ceased to exist after annual general meeting that was held on October 31, 1996 within the Group Ranch and he annexed to his Replying Affidavit, a copy of the Minutes of the Annual General Meeting and a Letter to the Director of Land Adjudication for the formal dissolution of the Group Ranch.
5. I have considered the Application and the Replying Affidavit in opposition to the same and the sole issue for determination thereof is whether the applicant has laid down the requisite condition to enjoin the proposed Respondents.
6. On the face of the Application the Applicant states that the proposed Respondent have subdivided the land. However, in controverting the same the proposed Respondent have stated that the subdivision was procedural. I have read the Minutes of the Groups upon completion of the Adjudication and process and I have not seen information in support of the Applicant’s assertion. Furthermore, the applicant has not demonstrated or shown which parcels of land the proposed Respondent have subdivided and I find the entire Application is based on innuendo that cannot be proved.
7. In view of the above, I find the Notice of Motion dated November 8, 2017 is not merited and I find no reason t enjoin the proposed Respondents to the suit and consequently, I dismiss the application with costs.
DATED SIGNED DELIVERED, VIRTUALLY AT MIGORI THIS 2ND DAY OF MARCH 2022. MOHAMMED.N. KULLOWJUDGE