[2020] KEELC 10 (KLR)
The court found that allowing the application to amend the defence and join Michael Odera Otom as the 4th defendant would likely result in embarrassment and prejudice, as the subject matter and parties substantially overlap with those in Kisumu ELC No. 894 of 2015. The court noted that the 1st defendant is not a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 10 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Karen Enterprises Limited; Defendant: Lawrence Musango Okech; Defendant: Peter Opiyo; Defendant: Joyce Wanjawa; Defendant: Michael Odera Otom
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 17 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Ruling / Application to Amend Defence and Join Party
- Outcome
- application declined
- Judges
- TM Olando
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Amendment of Pleadings, Abuse of Court Process, 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
Karen Enterprises Limited
Plaintiff
Lawrence Musango Okech
Defendant
Peter Opiyo
Defendant
Joyce Wanjawa
Defendant
Michael Odera Otom
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Ruling / Application to Amend Defence and Join Party
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st defendant should be granted leave to amend his defence and include a counterclaim.
- 2 Whether Michael Odera Otom should be joined as the 4th defendant in the suit.
- 3 Whether the application to amend and join parties constitutes an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that allowing the application to amend the defence and join Michael Odera Otom as the 4th defendant would likely result in embarrassment and prejudice, as the subject matter and parties substantially overlap with those in Kisumu ELC No. 894 of 2015. The court noted that the 1st defendant is not a party in the related suit, but the risk of duplicative litigation and potential abuse of court process outweighs the benefits of amendment and joinder. The court emphasized the need to prevent forum shopping and ensure the proper administration of justice. Consequently, the application was declined to avoid prejudice and abuse of process.
Court Disposition
application declined
Orders
- The application to amend the defence and join Michael Odera Otom as 4th defendant is declined.
- Costs in the cause.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
26 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT KISUMU
ELC CASE NO. 17 OF 2019
KAREN ENTERPRISES LIMITED...............................-PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
LAWRENCE MUSANGO OKECH.......................1ST DEFENDANT
PETER OPIYO........................................................2ND DEFENDANT
JOYCE WANJAWA................................................3RD DEFENDANT
MICHAEL ODERA OTOM..................................4TH DEFENDANT
RULING
The Application is dated 31st July, 2019. The defendant prays that the Honourable court be pleased to grant leave for the defendant herein to amend his defence. The amended defence be deemed duly filed and served upon the plaintiff herein. The amended defence annexed hereto be treated as the defendants amended defence and counterclaim and the same be deemed as having been duly filed upon payment of the court requisite fee. That Michael Odera Otom be joined as the 4th defendant herein. That the cost of this application be provided for. The application is based on grounds that that Michael Odera Otom has interest in the suit land being the administrator of the estate of Thomas Otom Agulo (deceased). That the amendment will help in resolving the issues in controversy. That the amendment is required to deal with the issues. That the amendment will not in any way prejudice the plaintiff herein or occasion any injustice. That it is in the interest of justice that the amendment be allowed.
The defendant seeking to join the 4th defendant as the administrator of the estate of the late Thomas Otom Agulo and has beneficial interest in the suit property. It was alleged that Michael Odera Otom’s father was Thomas Otom Agulo was at material times the proprietor of the parcel of land measuring 25 hectares. It is alleged that the land irregularly acquired.
He traced the lineage of his father and their occupation of the suit property and claims that the land was not compulsorily acquired.
The plaintiff filed grounds of opposition stating that he proposed 4th defendant is the plaintiff in Kisumu Environment and Land case number 894 of 2015 formerly Kisumu HCCC No. 36 of 2009. The plaintiff is the 3rd defendant in the suit.
The plaintiff further stated that In the other case the proposed 4th defendant is being exposed as having irregularly sought and obtained orders from the National Land Commission (hereinafter “the NLC”) in regard to the suit property without disclosing to the NLC that he had instituted the other case thereby making his complaint unsuitable for consideration by the NLC and without informing the court of his initiation of proceedings replicating his claim before the NLC in defiance of the court’s jurisdiction. This is now an issue in the other case and the basis for additional relief sought by the 3rd defendant therein by way of counterclaim. The application is therefore clearly intended to facilitate the joinder of the proposed 4th defendant as a defendant and counterclaimant in this suit so that once again he is able to dupe the court by litigating ‘afresh’ without disclosing the existence of the other case and the difficulties he faces therein for abusing the court process as aforesaid.
The defendants’ application is in the circumstances an abuse of the process of the court and ought to be dismissed with costs. The 1st defendant claims that parcel number I.R 67384 and land reference number 16345 belonged to his grandfather Joshua Agulo Sule, deceased. It was unregistered at the time. He claims that it was illegally acquired and registered as I.R 96243 and I.R 67348 and was later sub-divided to create LR No.16345, 16344, 15300, 15299 and 16346.
I have considered the application and the reply by the respondent and I have called for the file number 894 0f 2015 between Michael Odero Otom and the plaintiff respondent and do find that allowing the application by the 1st defendant is likely to put this court in an embarrassment as the subject matter is the same and the parties are the same save that the 1ST defendant is not a party in 894 of 2015. This is a matter that if not properly administered will lead to prejudice and abuse of court process. Parties to take a mention date for purposes of directions. Application is declined costs in the cause. Orders accordingly.
DATED, DELIVERED and SIGNED THIS 12th DAY OFMAY, 2020.
A.O. OMBWAYO
ENVIRONMENT & LAND
JUDGE
This judgment is hereby delivered to the parties by electronic mail due to the measures restricting court operations due to COVID -19 pandemic and in light of directions issued by the Honourable Chief Justice and with the consent of the parties.
A.O. OMBWAYO
ENVIRONMENT & LAND
JUDGE