[2022] KEELC 13813 (KLR)
The court found that Taita Hills and Salt Lick Wildlife Resort Limited had demonstrated a clear and direct interest in the subject matter of the suit, as the electric fence in dispute runs along the boundary of its land (LR No 103007). The applicant's ownership and the potential impact of the court's orders on its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELC 13813 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Josephat Mvoi Mwangombe & 8 others; Defendant: Kenya Wildlife Services; Applicant: Taita Hills And Salt Lick Wildlife Resort Limited
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 106 of 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application for Joinder as Interested Party
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- M Sila
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Interested Party Status, Land Ownership Disputes, Electric Fencing, Community Land Rights
- 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
Josephat Mvoi Mwangombe & 8 others
Plaintiff
Kenya Wildlife Services
Defendant
Taita Hills And Salt Lick Wildlife Resort Limited
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application for Joinder as Interested Party
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Taita Hills and Salt Lick Wildlife Resort Limited should be joined as an interested party in the suit.
- 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated a sufficient interest in the subject matter of the proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that Taita Hills and Salt Lick Wildlife Resort Limited had demonstrated a clear and direct interest in the subject matter of the suit, as the electric fence in dispute runs along the boundary of its land (LR No 103007). The applicant's ownership and the potential impact of the court's orders on its property rights justified its joinder as an interested party. The court emphasized that the applicant's participation would assist in the just determination of the dispute, and that the applicant had sufficiently established its locus standi. The opposition by the plaintiffs was found unpersuasive, as the applicant had provided evidence of ownership and a legitimate interest in...
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- Taita Hills and Salt Lick Wildlife Resort Limited is joined to this suit as an interested party.
- The applicant is at liberty to present evidence and assist the court in the proceedings.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
Mwangombe & 8 others v Kenya Wildlife Services; Taita Hills and Salt Lick Wildlife Resort Limited (Applicant) (Environment & Land Case 106 of 2019) [2022] KEELC 13813 (KLR) (12 October 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEELC 13813 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Environment & Land Case 106 of 2019
M Sila, J
October 12, 2022
Between
Josephat Mvoi Mwangombe & 8 others
Plaintiff
and
Kenya Wildlife Services
Defendant
and
Taita Hills And Salt Lick Wildlife Resort Limited
Applicant
Ruling
(Application by Taita Hills and Salt Lick Wildlife Resort Limited to be joined as interested party; application allowed) 1. This ruling is in respect of the application dated September 26, 2019, filed by Taita Hills and Salt Lick Wildlife Resort Limited. The application seeks orders for the applicant to be joined to this suit as interested party.
2. The background is that through a plaint filed on June 17, 2019, the plaintiffs sued Kenya Wildlife Services (KWS), complaining that KWS was erecting an electric fence in their parcels of land identified as Taita Taveta/Mwachabo Scheme/973, 1113, 1159, 1111, and 111. They described themselves as being members of the Alia Community and that this was their ancestral land. KWS responded to the suit, their position being that they were erecting the electric fence so as to forestall animal-wildlife conflict. They denied erecting the fence in the land of the plaintiffs. They contended that the fence was along Lualenyi Ranch and was to pass through Taita Hills/Salt Lick area (Taita Hills Wildlife Sanctuary) and Mngama Ridge, along their boundaries.
3. In this application, the applicant avers to be the registered owner of LR No 103007 commonly referred to as Taita Hills and Salt Lick Wildlife Sanctuary. It is stated that the fence in issue runs along the boundary of this sanctuary. It is averred that the applicant holds crucial information that will assist the court to fully determine the matter.
4. The plaintiffs have opposed the motion through the replying affidavit of Herman Mwangemi Righa, the 5th plaintiff. He has deposed that the applicants are strangers to the suit and that they have not disclosed any interest or what they stand to lose or gain as they are not residents in occupation of any land affected. He avers that they have not given their title deeds so as to confirm their interest in the disputed land.
5. The defendant does not oppose the application.
6. I have considered the application alongside the submissions of Mr Karina, learned counsel for the applicants, and Mr Onkangi, learned counsel for the plaintiffs.
7. It is apparent that the electric fence in dispute runs along the boundary of the applicant’s land. Although the plaintiffs allege in their reply that the applicant has not provided her land, the applicant actually has presented to be the owner of the land parcel LR No 103007. The applicant will be directly affected by any order that this court will make regarding the electric fence as it passes along her boundary. She has a clear interest in the suit.
8. I therefore allow the application. I order that Taita Hills and Salt Lick Wildlife Resort Limited be joined to this suit as interested party. The applicant will be at liberty to present evidence and assist the court in arriving at a just decision.
9. I make no orders as to costs.
10. Orders accordingly.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 12TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022JUSTICE MUNYAO SILAJUDGE, ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURTDelivered in the presence of:-Mr Onkangi for the plaintiff.Ms Lelu for the defendant.N/A on part of M/s Ndegwa & Sitonik Advocates for the applicant.Court Assistant – Wilson Rabong’o.