[2020] KEELC 2757 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate how his inclusion as an interested party would assist in the effectual determination of the dispute, as the plot he claims to represent (No. 1174 Kipise Adjudication Section) was not among those forming the basis of the claim against the defendants. Therefore,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 2757 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Ole Naadukila & 19 Others; Defendant: Ole Meshuko & 25 Others; Applicant: 2nd Applicant (unnamed)
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Narok
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Cause 46 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Joinder as Interested Party
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- MN Kullow
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Interested Party Application, Adjudication Section Land, Administration of Estates
- 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
Ole Naadukila & 19 Others
Plaintiff
Ole Meshuko & 25 Others
Defendant
2nd Applicant (unnamed)
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Joinder as Interested Party
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 2nd Applicant should be enjoined as an interested party in the suit.
- 2 Whether the inclusion of the 2nd Applicant will assist the court in effectually determining the dispute between the parties.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate how his inclusion as an interested party would assist in the effectual determination of the dispute, as the plot he claims to represent (No. 1174 Kipise Adjudication Section) was not among those forming the basis of the claim against the defendants. Therefore, the application for joinder was not merited and was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The Notice of Motion dated 2nd November, 2018 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAROK
ELC CAUSE NO. 46 OF 2017
FORMELY NAKURU ELC NO. 51 OF 2013
OLE NAADUKILA & 19 OTHERS................PLAINTIFF
-VERSUS-
OLE MESHUKO & 25 OTHERS................DEFENDANT
RULING
(Notice of Motion dated 2nd November, 2018)
By a Notice of Motion dated 2nd November, 2018 the 2nd Applicant sought for orders to be enjoined as an interested party in the suit herein. The Application was based on the grounds that his inclusive in the suit will assist the court in the effectual determination of the suit and further that any orders made will directly affect him and if he is not enjoined the matter will proceed without him being accorded the chance to be heard. The Application was supported by the affidavit of the 2nd Applicant who deponed that the suit land belonged to his deceased father and that he is the administrator of his deceased father’s estate and that no prejudice will be occasioned to the other parties if he is enjoined in the suit.
The application was opposed by the 1st Defendant/Respondent who averred that there is no nexus between the proposed interested party and the defendants and that if the proposed interested party is aggrieved he should file a separate suit as he has not indicated who had encroached on the land.
I have considered the application before me and the replying affidavit in opposition to the application the grounds upon which a party may be enjoined in a suit are now settled. The party who wants to be enjoined in the suit must demonstrate that his inclusive in the suit will assist the court in effectually determining the dispute as between the parties. In the instant application the applicant contends that he is the administrator of the estate of his late father who owned plot No. 1174 Kipise Adjudication Section which was encroached upon and trespassed by the defendant. From the pleading the aforesaid plot is not included as among those that the claim against the defendant is based upon and for that reason I don’t see how the inclusion of the applicant will assist the court in determining the issue as between the parties and for the above reasons I find that the Notice of Motion dated 2nd November, 2018 is not merited and in the circumstances I dismiss the same with costs.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAROK on this 6thday of MAY, 2020.
Mohammed Kullow
Judge
6/5/2020
In the presence of:
CA:Chuma
N/A for the parties and advocates
Mohammed Kullow
Judge
6/5/2020