[2023] KEELC 21564 (KLR)
The court found that the issues raised in the application, including the plaintiffs' locus standi and the alleged lack of proprietary interest by the 5th defendant, involved contested facts that could not be properly determined on affidavit evidence at the interlocutory stage. The court emphasized that the drastic...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] KEELC 21564 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Benjamin Kipkech Kipkulei; Plaintiff: David Kahuria Mbugua; Defendant: Chief Land Registrar; Defendant: Wilson Kigutu Macharia; Defendant: Kibii Boiyo; Defendant: Luke Kipkemoi Chemweni; Defendant: David Kimani Gicharu; Defendant: Francis K. Changwony; Defendant: David Biwott; Defendant: David Boiyo; Defendant: David Maina; Interested Party: Agricultural Development Corporation; Interested Party: Joseph Kiangoi Ombasa
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E12 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Amended Plaint Against 5th Defendant
- Outcome
- Application to strike out amended plaint against 5th defendant dismissed.
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Striking Out Pleadings, Locus Standi, Proprietary Interest, Rectification of Title, Abuse of Process
- 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
Benjamin Kipkech Kipkulei
Plaintiff
David Kahuria Mbugua
Plaintiff
Chief Land Registrar
Defendant
Wilson Kigutu Macharia
Defendant
Kibii Boiyo
Defendant
Luke Kipkemoi Chemweni
Defendant
David Kimani Gicharu
Defendant
Francis K. Changwony
Defendant
David Biwott
Defendant
David Boiyo
Defendant
David Maina
Defendant
Agricultural Development Corporation
Interested Party
Joseph Kiangoi Ombasa
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Interlocutory Application to Strike Out Amended Plaint Against 5th Defendant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the amended plaint against the 5th defendant should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable cause of action.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs have locus standi to prosecute any claim over parcel no 119.
- 3 Whether the suit is an abuse of the court process due to parallel proceedings on plot no 79.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the issues raised in the application, including the plaintiffs' locus standi and the alleged lack of proprietary interest by the 5th defendant, involved contested facts that could not be properly determined on affidavit evidence at the interlocutory stage. The court emphasized that the drastic remedy of striking out pleadings should only be exercised in clear cases, and that the parties would have the opportunity to present their evidence at the full hearing. Consequently, the application to strike out the amended plaint as against the 5th defendant was disallowed, and the matter was set down for hearing of the main suit.
Court Disposition
Application to strike out amended plaint against 5th defendant dismissed.
Orders
- The application dated 11/5/2023 is disallowed.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
42 paragraphs
Kipkulei & another v Chief Land Registrar & 8 others; Agricultural Development Corporation & another (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Case E12 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 21564 (KLR) (15 November 2023) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2023] KEELC 21564 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru
Environment & Land Case E12 of 2022
FM Njoroge, J
November 15, 2023
Between
Benjamin Kipkech Kipkulei
1st Plaintiff
David Kahuria Mbugua
2nd Plaintiff
and
Chief Land Registrar
1st Defendant
Wilson Kigutu Macharia
2nd Defendant
Kibii Boiyo
3rd Defendant
Luke Kipkemoi Chemweni
4th Defendant
David Kimani Gicharu
5th Defendant
Francis K. Changwony
6th Defendant
David Biwott
7th Defendant
David Boiyo
8th Defendant
David Maina
9th Defendant
and
Agricultural Development Corporation
Interested Party
Joseph Kiangoi Ombasa
Interested Party
Ruling
1. This is a ruling with respect of the plaintiffs Notice of Motion application dated 11/5/2023. It has been brought under order 2 rule 15(1) (a) (b) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Rules, section 1B and 3A and section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and it seeks the following orders;a.That the amended plaint dated 30th June 2022 filed herein against the 5th defendant herein be struck out and the suit be dismissed;b.That the plaintiffs’ claim be struck out for failing to relate to some properties whose numbers are given;c.That the 5th defendant’s costs of the suit and of the application be borne by the 1st defendant.
2. The application is supported by the grounds on its face and in the affidavit sworn by David Kimani Gicharu on 11/05/2023. The grounds are namely that the plaintiffs in the present case seek to enforce their alleged interest over parcels LR Nos. 20591/17, 20591/19, 20591/20, 20591/21, 20591/22, 20591/67, and 20591/80. The applicant states that he has no proprietary interest in the said properties and that sold parcel no 119 to a third party. He further avers that it is clear from the amended plaint that the plaintiffs are not claiming plot no 20591/119 either as registered or as beneficial owners at all; that the plaintiffs lack locus standi to prosecute any claim over parcel no 119 in the present suit; that plot no 79 is the subject matter of another pending suit and the commencement of the presents suit is an abuse of the process of the court.
3. In his replying affidavit the 1st plaintiff, without stating if he is authorized to swear on behalf of the 2nd plaintiff states as follows; that the applicant is a registered owner of plot 119, that the certificate of title in which the 5th defendant is registered as owner is a false document, and the plaintiffs seek to have the allegedly falsified certificate of title revoked. They also seek an order of rectification of records which would affect the 5th defendant and that the 5th defendant is therefore a necessary party.
4. I have perused the application the response and the submissions of the respondents. I found no submissions filed on behalf of the applicant. I have found considerable argument raised in the filed documents. Evidence for and against the application is by way of affidavit evidence which I do not think is the proper kind of evidence by which to determine the controversies it raises. I also observe that the parties will have an opportunity to present their evidence at the hearing which will address the issues raised in the motion. For that reason, I disallow the application dated 11/5/2023 with no orders as to costs. I order that the parties shall appear before the court at Nakuru on 30/11/2013 for the fixing of a hearing date for the main suit.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MALINDI VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL ON THIS 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2023. MWANGI NJOROGEJUDGE, ELC, MALINDI