[2018] KEELC 2741 (KLR)
The court determined that proceeding with the hearing while applications for joinder of parties were pending would be premature and potentially prejudicial. The court emphasized that directions under Order 37 Rule 18 had not been issued, and that the joinder application, if granted, could affect the parties to the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 2741 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Lydia Karimi; Defendant: Christine Mukiri; Defendant: Joanina Kaimuri Mbwiria; Defendant: Julia Mugure Mbwiria
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 147 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Originating Summons / Ruling on Adjournment and Joinder Application
- Outcome
- hearing adjourned for directions and determination of pending applications
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Adjournment of Hearing, Directions Under Order 37, Civil Procedure Rules Application
- 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
Lydia Karimi
Plaintiff
Christine Mukiri
Defendant
Joanina Kaimuri Mbwiria
Defendant
Julia Mugure Mbwiria
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Ruling on Adjournment and Joinder Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the hearing should proceed when applications for joinder of parties are pending.
- 2 Whether directions under Order 37 Rule 18 must be issued before substantive hearing.
- 3 Whether the court should prioritize pending applications over immediate hearing.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that proceeding with the hearing while applications for joinder of parties were pending would be premature and potentially prejudicial. The court emphasized that directions under Order 37 Rule 18 had not been issued, and that the joinder application, if granted, could affect the parties to the suit and the conduct of the proceedings. The court concluded that it is in the interest of justice and procedural fairness to adjourn the hearing to allow the pending applications to be heard and determined first. This approach ensures that all necessary parties are before the court and that the litigation proceeds in an orderly and fair manner, consistent with the objectives of...
Court Disposition
hearing adjourned for directions and determination of pending applications
Orders
- The hearing is adjourned to a date to be agreed between the parties for directions before another substantive hearing date is taken.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
E & L CASE NO. 147 OF 2014 (OS)
LYDIA KARIMI.........................................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CHRISTINE MUKIRI................................................... 1ST DEFENDANT
JOANINA KAIMURI MBWIRIA..........2ND INTENDED DEFENDANT
JULIA MUGURE MBWIRIA................3RD INTENDED DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The Defendant is ready to proceed with the suit today. The Plaintiff is not. The matter was given a date by this court which also served the notice. The Defendant has filed her list of witnesses in court as well as a list of documents and has statement.
It is not disputed that directions under Order 37 Rule 18 have not been issued in this matter. It is also not disputed that at least two applications are pending for hearing and determination, one being for joinder of two more parties to the suit and that the latter application was opposed by way of a Replying Affidavit.
The plaintiff was served on 17/4/2018 as was the Defendant.
This court has to now balance between taking advantage of the moment in utilizing the time available today to hear this matter and the advantage of deferring the same to another date to enable the applications be dealt with first before the substantive hearing.
In my view when an application is pending for joinder of parties there is likelihood that the party so applying may have come to a realization that his suit is not tenable as against the existing parties alone, hence the application.
Ordinarily this court has powers to order joinders of parties even without the application of any party in accordance with Order 1 Rule 10of theCivil Procedure Rules.
It may have escaped notice of this court that there was an application on record for joinder of more parties. However the plaintiff also has no good reason advanced today as to why he never prosecuted that application. The process of justice is a long and arduous one and along that road one will find all kind of litigants, the eager, the lackadaisical, and the reckless and so on.
However it is in the public interest that justice be based on substance, and that litigation do have an end, and the proposed joinder may ensure that these two overarching objectives of our Civil Procedure Rules are attained.
Further it is only fair that all the proposed parties be considered while the application is being argued so that appropriate orders may be given to pave the way for proper conduct of this litigation.
My conclusion therefore is that though the Defendant is ready to proceed and has a host of witnesses in court, as the court can see, this suit is not ripe for hearing.
I therefore adjourn the hearing to another date to be agreed between the parties for direction before another substantive hearing date is taken.
Dated, signed and delivered at Meru on this 20th day of June 2018
MWANGI NJOROGE,
JUDGE
In the presence of
Mr. Mbaabu for the defendants and the proposed defendants
Mr. Mwirigi for the plaintiff.
C/A : Janet.