[2023] KEELC 17172 (KLR)
The court found that the application for stay and further orders was barred by the doctrines of res judicata and functus officio, as similar applications by other interested parties had already been determined and the matter was at the execution stage. The applicant, although not a party to previous applications,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 17172 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Joseph Kabugi Karanja; Defendant: Benson Mugo Mukunya; Defendant: Joyce Wambui Langat; Defendant: Milka Kanene Ndungu; Defendant: Bernard Leitich, Land Registrar Thika; Interested Party: Emma Wairimu Wamukunya; Interested Party: Samuel Magana Mungai; Interested Party: Joseph Muihai Kibunja; Interested Party: Jeremiah Kihonge Kimani
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 1289 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application for Joinder and Stay of Execution
- Outcome
- Application dismissed save for joinder; applicant enjoined as interested party; costs to plaintiff.
- Judges
- LN Mbugua
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Stay of Execution, Functus Officio, Res Judicata, Land Ownership Disputes
- 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
Joseph Kabugi Karanja
Plaintiff
Benson Mugo Mukunya
Defendant
Joyce Wambui Langat
Defendant
Milka Kanene Ndungu
Defendant
Bernard Leitich, Land Registrar Thika
Defendant
Emma Wairimu Wamukunya
Interested Party
Samuel Magana Mungai
Interested Party
Joseph Muihai Kibunja
Interested Party
Jeremiah Kihonge Kimani
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application for Joinder and Stay of Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant should be enjoined as an interested party in the proceedings.
- 2 Whether the court should stay execution of its earlier ruling regarding the suit property.
- 3 Whether the application is res judicata and whether the court is functus officio.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for stay and further orders was barred by the doctrines of res judicata and functus officio, as similar applications by other interested parties had already been determined and the matter was at the execution stage. The applicant, although not a party to previous applications, was seeking substantially the same reliefs. The court held that it could not halt execution to allow new claims at this stage. However, the court allowed the prayer for joinder, permitting the applicant to be enjoined as an interested party, but dismissed all other prayers in the application. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed save for joinder; applicant enjoined as interested party; costs to plaintiff.
Orders
- The application dated 7.10.2022 is dismissed except for the prayer for joinder.
- Emma Wairimu Wamukunya is enjoined as an interested party in the proceedings.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
37 paragraphs
Karanja v Mukunya & 3 others; Wamukunya & 3 others (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Case 1289 of 2014) [2023] KEELC 17172 (KLR) (27 April 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 17172 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Environment & Land Case 1289 of 2014
LN Mbugua, J
April 27, 2023
Between
Joseph Kabugi Karanja
Plaintiff
and
Benson Mugo Mukunya
1st Defendant
Joyce Wambui Langat
2nd Defendant
Milka Kanene Ndungu
3rd Defendant
Bernard Leitich, Land Registrar Thika
4th Defendant
and
Emma Wairimu Wamukunya
Interested Party
Samuel Magana Mungai
Interested Party
Joseph Muihai Kibunja
Interested Party
Jeremiah Kihonge Kimani
Interested Party
Ruling
1. Before me is an application dated 7. 10. 2022. It is brought by one Emma Wairimu Wamukunya who seeks to be enjoined in these proceedings as an Interested Party, that there be a stay of the ruling of 10. 11. 2021 pertaining to title no. Loc 16/Kimandi-Wanyaga 1262 and that the court do issue orders and directions with respect to further conduct of the suit.
2. The application is based on grounds on its face and on the Applicant’s supporting affidavit sworn on 6. 10. 2022. She deposes that she is the registered owner of the property known as Title No. Loc 16/Kimandi-Wanyaga /1262 which is a subdivision of Title No. Loc.16/Kimandi-Wanyaga/775 by virtue of purchase from the 1st Defendant. She avers that she enjoyed ownership of the suit property since purchase on 15. 12. 2018 till November 2021 when she came to learn that this suit is ongoing and the Plaintiff herein had been granted orders to have title deeds issued after the subdivision of Title No.Loc.16/Kimand-Wanyaga/775 revoked and/or nullified.
3. The application is opposed by the Plaintiff by way of grounds of opposition dated 6. 2.2023. He argues that the application is resjudicata within the meaning of Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act as 3 other Interested Parties namely; Samuel Magana Muigai, Joseph Muigai Kibunja and Jeremiah Kihonge Kimani filed a similar applications seeking similar orders and the said application was determined vide a ruling dated 23. 2.2022 therefore the court is functus officio.
4. One Samuel Magana, an interested party is not opposing the application, while the defendants did not file any documents in relation to this application. Further, none of the parties filed submissions as per the court directions given on 14. 2.2023.
5. On 4. 12. 2018, the Plaintiff and the Defendants entered into a consent which was adopted as an order of the court on 20. 5.2019. The consent provided that the suit land; Loc 16/Kimanid/Wanyaga 775 be subdivided and 3 acres transferred to the Plaintiff herein.
6. The history of the dispute herein is well captured in the ruling delivered by this court on 10. 11. 2021. Applications similar to the current application were subsequently brought forth by interested parties of which the court rendered itself in a ruling dated 23. 2.2022 dismissing those other applications save the prayer for joinder. The current applicant was not a party to the previous applications, but again, I have no reason to deviate from the previous pronouncements. In the said ruling of 23. 2.2022, the court determined that since the matter is at the execution stage, it cannot be halted to allow other parties to bring their claims. As pointed out by the plaintiff, this court is functus-offio in so far as the dispute is concerned.
7. Thus the current application dated 7. 10. 2022 faces similar fate as previous applications of interested parties. The said application is hereby dismissed save the prayer no. 3 for joinder. The applicant is condemned to pay costs of the application to the plaintiff.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 27TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:-M/s Maina for the Proposed Interested PartyM/s Waweru holding brief for Ongeri for Plaintiff / RespondentSala holding brief for Muriithi for 1st Interested PartyCourt assistant: Vanilla