[2007] KEHC 3557 (KLR)
The court found that the application to strike out the 1st defendant could not be granted because there was insufficient clarity and certainty regarding the vesting of the disputed properties and the responsibility for compensation. The plaintiffs had demonstrated that the 1st defendant was in control of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 3557 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jane Wambui Karanja (Suing as the legal representative of the estate of Karanja Mwaniki-deceased); Plaintiff: Mwangi Mbogo (Suing as the legal representative of the estate of Mbogo Kihara-deceased); Plaintiff: James Kamau Thuo; Plaintiff: Kamau Njuguna; Plaintiff: Samuel Munoru; Plaintiff: Joseph Mwangi Maina; Defendant: New Kenya Co-operative Creameries Co. Ltd; Defendant: Maragua County Council
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 531 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out 1st Defendant
- Outcome
- application to strike out 1st defendant dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs
- Legal Topics
- Vesting Orders, Compensation for Land, Liquidation of Company Assets, Striking Out Parties
- 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
Jane Wambui Karanja (Suing as the legal representative of the estate of Karanja Mwaniki-deceased)
Plaintiff
Mwangi Mbogo (Suing as the legal representative of the estate of Mbogo Kihara-deceased)
Plaintiff
James Kamau Thuo
Plaintiff
Kamau Njuguna
Plaintiff
Samuel Munoru
Plaintiff
Joseph Mwangi Maina
Plaintiff
New Kenya Co-operative Creameries Co. Ltd
Defendant
Maragua County Council
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out 1st Defendant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st defendant, New Kenya Co-operative Creameries Ltd, should be struck out from the suit on grounds that the subject properties were not vested in it.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to compensation for land allegedly utilized by the 1st defendant or its predecessor.
- 3 Whether the 1st defendant is the proper party to be sued for the alleged non-compensation.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application to strike out the 1st defendant could not be granted because there was insufficient clarity and certainty regarding the vesting of the disputed properties and the responsibility for compensation. The plaintiffs had demonstrated that the 1st defendant was in control of the premises and had not provided any formal notice or evidence of relinquishing such control. The court held that, in the absence of clear evidence that the 1st defendant was not responsible for the properties or compensation, the application to strike out must fail. The proper course for the 1st defendant, if it believed another party was liable, was to initiate third party proceedings...
Court Disposition
application to strike out 1st defendant dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs
Orders
- The application to strike out the 1st defendant is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the plaintiffs/respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
45 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 531 of 2005
1. Land and Environmental Law Division
2. Subject of main suit Land
i) Land originally owned by M/s Kenya Co-operative Creameries (in Liquidation).
ii) Vesting orders given to 1st defendant New Kenya
Co-operative Creameries Ltd.
iii) 1st defendant claim by court order vesting properties to it
iv) Loc.3 Gichagiini/T52, T55,T54,T56,T58 and T60 were not part of 1st defendant properties.
v) Suit against 1st defendant be duly strike out.
In reply:
i) The plaintiffs were never compensated.
ii) The applicants actually utilized land as cemetery Loc.Gichagiini/311. Premises within compound of 1st defendant.
Held: Summary judgment must be made in the clearest term.
Case Law- nil
Advocate:
Mamicha & Co. Advocates for the plaintiff- present
Gathoga Wairegei & Co. Advocates for the defendant- present
JANE WAMBUI KARANJA (Suing as the legalRepresentative
of the estate of Karanja Mwaniki-deceased..................................1ST PLAINTIFF
MWANGI MBOGO (Suing as the legal representative
Of the estate of Mbogo Kihara-deceased)................................... 2ND PLAINTIFF
JAMES KAMAU THUO ………….……………….............................3RD PLAINTIFF
KAMAU NJUGUNA ……………….………………. ..........................4TH PLAINTIFF
SAMUEL MUNORU ……………….………………............................5TH PLAINTIFF
JOSEPH MWANGI MAINA ……………………….............................6TH PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NEW KENYA CO-OPERATIVE CREAMERIES CO. LTD .……1ST DEFENDANT
MARAGUA COUNTY COUNCIL …………...................................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
1: Application to strike out 1st defendant M/s New Kenya Cooperative Creameries Ltd from suit.
1. The application dated 12 July 2007 seeks to strike out the 1st defendant M/s New Kenya Cooperative Creameries from the suit. This is on the grounds that there existed a Kenya Cooperative Creameries Ltd which is now in liquidation. Their assets of the old company was vested by the High Court to M/s New Kenya Co-operative Creameries Ltd.
2. The respondent plaintiffs filed suit against the applicant 1st defendant and the Maragwa County Council whereby they claimed that certain parcels of land was being held by the County Council and the Kenya Cooperative Creamers which company requested the plaintiff to take out their plots and compensate them. The plaintiff yielded their plots but were not compensated. The plaintiff now sue the new Kenya Co-operative Creameries so that they be compensated.
3. The New Kenya Cooperative Creameries seek leave of this court to be struck out of this suit on the grounds that properties of the Kenya Cooperative Creameries were vested in the New Creameries Cooperative (1st defendant) but that the properties in question and belonging to the 1st – 6 plaintiff do not vest. They therefore have nothing to do with the issue of Corporation. They ask that 1st defendant suit be struck out.
II: Finding.
4. A summary judgment for an application such as in this nature must be made in the clearest term. There must be no doubt. The plaintiff/respondent see their premises used by the 1st defendant/applicant and other properties around. How are they to know that the 1st defendant is not in control when there has been no letter revoking the take over of their property subject to compensation.?
5. The said 1st defendant blames another party for the plaintiff problem. They ought to file 3rd party proceeding under Order 1 r 14 Civil Procedure Rules against the parties whom they claim as responsible for compensation and control of the plaintiffs property.
6. I decline to grant this application. The same is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff/respondent.
Dated his 15th day of November 2007 at Nairobi.
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
Mamicha & Co. Advocates for the plaintiff- present
Gathoga Wairegei & Co. Advocates for the defendant- present