[2019] KEELC 984 (KLR)
The court found that the amended plaint specifically pleads that the 3rd defendant was among those who fraudulently colluded to cause the suit land to be registered in the name of the 1st and/or 2nd defendant. This constitutes a clear cause of action against the 3rd defendant. The determination of the 3rd...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 984 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission; Defendant: Ismail Kipkemboi; Defendant: 2nd Defendant; Defendant: 3rd Defendant; Defendant: 4th Defendant
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 180 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Strike Out 3rd Defendant
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out Parties, Fraudulent Land Transfer, Cause of Action, Joinder of 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
Kenya Anti-Corruption Commission
Plaintiff
Ismail Kipkemboi
Defendant
2nd Defendant
Defendant
3rd Defendant
Defendant
4th Defendant
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application to Strike Out 3rd Defendant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the amended plaint discloses a cause of action against the 3rd defendant.
- 2 Whether the 3rd defendant should be struck out from the suit for want of a cause of action.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the amended plaint specifically pleads that the 3rd defendant was among those who fraudulently colluded to cause the suit land to be registered in the name of the 1st and/or 2nd defendant. This constitutes a clear cause of action against the 3rd defendant. The determination of the 3rd defendant's culpability can only be made after a full hearing of the case. Therefore, it would be premature and improper to strike out the 3rd defendant at this stage. The plaintiff must be given an opportunity to ventilate its case against all parties named in the alleged fraud.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application to strike out the 3rd defendant is dismissed.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the plaintiff/respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT
AT MOMBASA
CIVIL SUIT NO. 180 OF 2009
KENYA ANTI-CORRUPTION COMMISSION......PLAINITFF
VERSUS
ISMAIL KIPKEMBOI & 4 OTHERS..................DEFENDANTS
RULING
(Application to have a defendant struck out on the claim that no cause of action exists against him; the applicant having been named by the plaintiff as being party to a fraud that caused the loss of a house alleged to belong to the Government; clear that there is a cause of action against the applicant; application dismissed)
1. The application before me is that dated 9 May 2019 filed by the 2nd and 3rd defendants. The application seeks to have orders that the 3rd defendant be struck off from this suit.
2. The suit itself was commenced by way of a plaint which was filed on 9 June 2006. That plaint was amended on 29 March 2019. In the amended plaint, it is pleaded that the Government of Kenya reserved the land parcel MN/I/2405 (the suit land) for the construction of a house for members of staff of the then Directorate of Civil Aviation and/or the Meteorological Department and in 1977 a house was duly constructed. It is claimed that in the year 2002, the 4th defendant, who then served as the Commissioner of Lands, fraudulently prepared a grant for the same land in favour of the 1st defendant. In the year 2003, the land was transferred from the 1st defendant to the 2nd defendant. The 3rd defendant/applicant is named as a director of the 2nd defendant.
3. In this application, it is contended that the suit does not disclose a cause of action against the 3rd defendant and should be struck out as against the 3rd defendant.
4. The application is opposed through the Replying Affidavit of Dedan Okwama, an investigator with the plaintiff, and he has deposed inter alia that the 3rd defendant is a necessary party.
5. I have considered the application and gone through the pleadings. It is the case of the plaintiff that among those who fraudulently colluded to cause the suit land to be registered in the name of the 1st and/or 2nd defendant is the 3rd defendant. There is therefore clearly a cause of action demonstrated against the 3rd defendant. It can only be after a full hearing of the case that we can tell whether or not the 3rd defendant is culpable, but clearly, there is a pleading directly affecting him which the plaintiff must be given an opportunity to ventilate.
6. I see no need to say more.
7. I find no merit in this application and it is hereby dismissed with costs.
8. Orders accordingly.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at MOMBASA this 6th day of November 2019.
_______________________
MUNYAO SILA,
JUDGE.
IN THE PRESENCE OF:
Mr. Makori for the plaintiff/respondent.
Mr Busyeka holding brief for Mr Oloo for the applicant and holding brief for Mr Magut for the 1st defendant.
Court assistant; David Koitamet.