[2021] KEELC 4729 (KLR)
The court found that the Applicants, having purchased their plots from the 1st Defendant in the same manner as the existing Plaintiffs, have a sufficient and common interest in the subject matter of the suit. The court held that the Applicants' interests are directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings, and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 4729 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Josphat Macharia and 49 others; Kenya Assemblies of God Church (suing through Isaac Kasili, Casper Musungu and Harun Kahuki); Defendant: Leltayet Court Developers Ltd; Defendant: Fuelex Kenya Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 423 of 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Joinder of Parties as Plaintiffs
- Outcome
- application for joinder allowed
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Land Sale Disputes, Privity of Contract, Limitation Periods
- 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
Josphat Macharia and 49 others; Kenya Assemblies of God Church (suing through Isaac Kasili, Casper Musungu and Harun Kahuki)
Plaintiff
Leltayet Court Developers Ltd
Defendant
Fuelex Kenya Limited
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Joinder of Parties as Plaintiffs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Applicants have demonstrated sufficient interest to be enjoined as Plaintiffs in the suit.
- 2 Whether the Applicants' delay in seeking joinder is justified.
- 3 Whether the Applicants have privity of contract with the 2nd Defendant.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Applicants, having purchased their plots from the 1st Defendant in the same manner as the existing Plaintiffs, have a sufficient and common interest in the subject matter of the suit. The court held that the Applicants' interests are directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings, and their joinder would enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon all matters in dispute. The court was not persuaded by the 2nd Defendant's arguments regarding delay, lack of privity, or limitation, as these issues do not preclude joinder at this stage. The Applicants were therefore entitled to be enjoined as Plaintiffs.
Court Disposition
application for joinder allowed
Orders
- The Applicants are enjoined as the 51st, 52nd, and 53rd Plaintiffs in the suit.
- The Plaint is to be amended accordingly within 14 days to reflect the joinder of the three Applicants as Plaintiffs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
77 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
ELC CASE NUMBER 423 OF 2008
JOSPHAT MACHARIA. .......................................................1ST PLAINTIFF
CHARLES MACHARIA GAKENGE.................................... 2ND PLAINTIFF
PETER AZEI. .........................................................................3RD PLAINTIFF
MILTON N. MAHUGU. ....................................................... 4TH PLAINTIFF
JAMES MINA MUTUATO.....................................................5TH PLAINTIFF
ADANGA AGISU...................................................................6TH PLAINTIFF
OBIRI MORARA. ................................................................7TH PLAINTIFF
EVANS MUSHEGA MUGILWA. ..........................................8TH PLAINTIFF
SAMUEL KIBE KIARIE.........................................................9TH PLAINTIFF
CHRISTOPHER OKEMWA...............................................10TH PLAINTIFF
PATRICK ANDAYI. .............................................................11TH PLAINTIFF
STEPHEN M WAIRE............................................................12TH PLAINTIFF
CHARLES NJAGI KIBABAI. .............................................13TH PLAINTIFF
GERALD KIMARI................................................................14TH PLAINTIFF
JOSECK THUO NGETA. .....................................................15TH PLAINTIFF
ROBINSON K OLAKI.........................................................16TH PLAINTIFF
MAURICE ONYANGO ODHIAMBO. ...............................17TH PLAINTIFF
JOHN MBUGUA KABUCHO. ...........................................18TH PLAINTIFF
TITUS SAMWEL KASWAILI...............................................19TH PLAINTIFF
TITUS AGISU MBEVA. .......................................................20TH PLAINTIFF
DAVID KITANGALA AGISU................................................21ST PLAINTIFF
STARBON ONACH AGISU................................................22ND PLAINTIFF
GEOFREY HENRY WANDABWA.......................................23ND PLAINTIFF
LEVI OYUGI MUGILWA. ..................................................24RD PLAINTIFF
PATRICK KINYOLO MBITHI. ..........................................25TH PLAINTIFF
A ANSELM NJOGU KIGOMO. .........................................26TH PLAINTIFF
FREDRICK NDUGIRE MWANGI. ......................................27TH PLAINTIFF
KENNEDY MULANDI MALINDA. ......................................28TH PLAINTIFF
WINSTON WINNER SASATI. .............................................29TH PLAINTIFF
JAMES OWONDO RATTA..................................................30TH PLAINTIFF
SIMON MUTELA JUDAH. ...................................................31ST PLAINTIFF
JOSEPH MACHARIA RUKU...............................................32ND PLAINTIFF
LAWRENCE MUTUA MWIKIA. ..........................................33ND PLAINTIFF
SAMSON K. KIMOTHO......................................................34TH PLAINTIFF
MR & MRS. MIKE NDAWA MWIKYA.................................35TH PLAINTIFF
SOLOMON KIRUMBA........................................................36TH PLAINTIFF
WILLIAM ITAMBI MWADIME............................................377H PLAINTIFF
GORDON R W WANDIO. ..................................................38TH PLAINTIFF
LEONIDAS KAMENDE.........................................................39TH PLAINTIFF
MUENI KAMENDE.................................................................40TH PLAINTIFF
GRACE MUTHONI CHEGE..................................................41ST PLAINTIFF
REGINA WAMBUI KAARA..................................................42ND PLAINTIFF
ROSE MUTHONI THUO......................................................43RD PLAINTIFF
JULIA WAMBURA KINAI. ...................................................44TH PLAINTIFF
EVA WANJIKU WAMBUGU.................................................45TH PLAINTIFF
CHRISTINE MBINDU MUSYOKA........................................46TH PLAINTIFF
FRIDAN WANDIA KABUI.....................................................47TH PLAINTIFF
ALICE NALIAKA SHITAMBASI...........................................48TH PLAINTIFF
BETH WANJIKU G................................................................49TH PLAINTIFF
KENYA ASSEMBLIES OF GOD CHURCH
(Suing through Isaac kasili, Casper Musungu
and Harun Kahuki)..................................................................50th PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
LELTAYET COURT DEVELOPERS LTD..............................1ST DEFENDANT
FUELEX KENYA LIMITED...................................................2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
1. This is a Ruling in respect of a notice of motion (sic) dated 16th June 2020 in which the Applicants seek to be enjoined in these proceedings as Plaintiffs. The dispute herein relates to LR No.22143 (suit property) which is at Komarock area of Nairobi. The 1st and 2nd Defendants had entered into an agreement whereby the 2nd Defendant was to purchase the suit property. The suit property was transferred to the 2nd Defendant but the 2nd Defendant was unable to clear the purchase price.
2. The 1st and 2nd Defendants entered into a memorandum of understanding in which it was agreed that the suit property which was 10 acres was to be subdivided into sub-plots which were to be sold in order to raise money for refund of the amount which the 2nd Defendant was owed. It is on this understanding that the sub-divided plots were sold to various persons who took possession.
3. The agents of the 2nd Defendant later went to the ground and threatened to evict the purchasers of the sub-plots. This is what made the Plaintiffs to move to court. There were originally twenty Plaintiffs. Thirty more Plaintiffs were enjoined in the suit making a total of fifty Plaintiffs. The Applicants who purchased the sub-plots which were being sold by the 1st Defendant have now also applied to be enjoined as they purchased the sub-plots from the 1st Defendant.
4. The 2nd Defendant has opposed the Applicants application based on a replying affidavit sworn on 26th June 2020. The 2nd Defendant contends that the Applicants application is brought in bad faith and that the Applicants have been aware of this suit which was filed in 2008. The 2nd Defendants also argues that the Applicants have not explained the delay in filing this application.
5. The 2nd Defendant further argues that the Applicants have no privity of contract with it as they purchased their respective plots from the 1st Defendant who had no capacity to sell the same as the 2nd Defendant is the registered owner of the suit property. The 2nd Defendant further argues that the Applicants are seeking to avoid the limitation period by seeking to be enjoined this suit.
6. I have considered the Applicants’ application as well as the opposition to the same by the 2nd Defendant. I have also considered the submissions filed. The only issue for determination is whether the Applicants have demonstrated that they have sufficient interest in this matter to warrant their joinder. There is no doubt that all the fifty Plaintiffs in this suit bought their respective plots from the 1st Defendant. The three Applicants also purchased their plots from the 1st Defendant. It is therefore clear that they have common issues which can be addressed in this matter. At this stage, the court’s concern is to determine whether the Applicants have demonstrated that they are entitled to be enjoined in these proceedings.
7. As the Applicants purchased their plots from the 1st Defendant, just as the other existing fifty Plaintiffs, I find that the Applicants should be enjoined in this case as the 51st, 52nd and 53rd Plaintiffs respectively. The Plaintiff shall be amended accordingly to reflect the three as Plaintiffs. They should then be served with pleadings in this case. The amendments should be done within 14 days. Costs of this application shall be in the cause.
It is so ordered.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nairobi on this 25th day of February 2021.
E.O.OBAGA
JUDGE
In the Virtual presence of:-
Mr Kegode for Applicants
Mr Omondi for Mr Gachie for Plaintiff
Mr Gititu for Mr Munyororo for 2nd Defendant
Court Assistant: John
E.O.OBAGA
JUDGE