[2018] KEELC 1854 (KLR)
The court found that the suit between the Plaintiff and Defendant had already been compromised and settled by consent, which was adopted as a court order. The Interested Parties' claim to the same land is the subject of a separate, pending suit (ELC No. 92 of 2013), and their rights are not prejudiced by the consent...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 1854 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Kimson Holdings Limited; Defendant: Geoffrey Musyoka Musembi; Applicant: Gabriel Njogu & 91 Others
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 311 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Joinder and Setting Aside Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Land Ownership Disputes, Consent Judgments
- 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
Kimson Holdings Limited
Plaintiff
Geoffrey Musyoka Musembi
Defendant
Gabriel Njogu & 91 Others
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Joinder and Setting Aside Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Interested Parties should be enjoined in the suit after its compromise by consent between Plaintiff and Defendant.
- 2 Whether the orders dated 22nd July, 2016 should be vacated or set aside in light of the Interested Parties' claims.
- 3 Whether the Applicants have locus standi to challenge the consent judgment or orders in this suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the suit between the Plaintiff and Defendant had already been compromised and settled by consent, which was adopted as a court order. The Interested Parties' claim to the same land is the subject of a separate, pending suit (ELC No. 92 of 2013), and their rights are not prejudiced by the consent judgment in the present matter. Since the present suit is settled, the Applicants cannot be enjoined at this stage and must pursue their claims in the pending suit. The application for joinder and setting aside of orders is therefore unmeritorious and dismissed.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 13th July, 2017 is dismissed.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MACHAKOS
ELC. CASE NO.311 OF 2017
KIMSON HOLDINGS LIMITED ..........................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
GEOFFREY MUSYOKA MUSEMBI ................................DEFENDANT
AND
GABRIEL NJOGU & 91 OTHERS ...............INTERESTED PARTIES
RULING
1. In the Application dated 13th July, 2017, the Interested Parties (Applicants) are seeking for the following orders:
a. That the Applicants herein request to be enjoined in this matter.
b. That the orders dated 22nd July, 2016 be herein vacated and/or set aside.
c. That the costs of this Application be provided for.
2. The Application is grounded on the following grounds: that the Applicants are the bona fide, legal and rightful owners of parcel of land known as Mavoko Town Block 3/1968; that a new title for parcel of land known as Mavoko Town Block 3/36365 was issued to the Plaintiff on the basis of a court order in HCCC No. 55 of 2016 and that the Applicants were not aware of the said suit.
3. According to the Affidavit of the 1st Interested Party, the Interested Parties bought the sub-divisions of the larger parcel of land from Mbukoni Holdings Limited; that they have taken possession and settled on the portion of land that they purchased and that they filed a suit in Machakos ELC No. 92 of 2013 which has a pending Ruling.
4. It is the Interested Parties case that when their advocates conducted an official search, it revealed that parcel of land known as Mavoko Town Block 3/1968 had been sub-divided resulting into parcels of land number 36364 and 36365 and that the said sub-division were done on 7th April, 2014 despite the existence of Machakos ELC No. 92 of 2013.
5. The Applicants finally deponed that the Defendant failed to disclose that there was a dispute in respect of the same land and that the orders issued herein will cause great pain and misery to the Interested Parties.
6. In response, the Plaintiff’s representatives deponed that the Applicants have no locus standi to bring any suit against the Plaintiff; that the court became fuctus officio after issuing final orders; that the Defendant herein admitted the Plaintiff’s claim and that the subject matter herein is in respect to parcel of land known as Mavoko Town Block 3/36365 and that plot number 1968 was sub-divided and parcels of land known as Mavoko Town Block 3/36364 and 36365 were created.
7. The Interested Parties, the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s advocate filed submissions which I have considered.
8. The record shows that the Plaintiff filed this claim as against the Defendant in which it sought for an order granting it the exclusive peaceful and quiet enjoyment of parcel of land known as Mavoko Town Block 3/36365.
9. According to the Plaintiff’s Plaint, it bought a portion of a parcel of land known as Mavoko Town Block 3/1968 measuring 10 acres from the Defendant; that the suit property was then sub-divided into two and that parcel of land known as Mavoko Town Block 3/36365 was then transferred to the Plaintiff.
10. The Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a consent dated 29th June, 2016 in which the suit was allowed. The said consent was adopted by the court on 31st January, 2017. By the time the parties herein were entering into the consent of 29th June, 2016, the Interested Parties/Applicants’ had filed Machakos ELC. No. 92 of 2013 in which they sued several Defendants, in respect of land known as Mavoko Town Block 3/1968. The Defendants in ELC. No. 92 of 2013 are the same people who purportedly sold the same land to the Defendant in this matter (ELC. No. 55 of 2016).
11. It is therefore obvious that the Applicants herein are claiming the same land in ELC. No. 92 of 2013 which the Plaintiff successfully claimed as against the Defendant. However, this suit was compromised by the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
12. Considering that the settlement of this suit between the Plaintiff and the Defendant does not affect the Applicants’ claim in ELC. No. 92 of 2013, and this suit having been settled as between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the Applicants should enjoin the parties herein in ELC. No. 92 of 2013 which is still pending. The Applicants cannot join in this suit which has since been settled, but instead prosecute the pending suit.
13. Consequently, I find that the Application dated 13th July, 2017 is unmeritorious and I dismiss it with no order as to costs. This file shall be marked as closed as indicated in the order of the court of 31st July, 2017.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE