[2021] KEELC 2805 (KLR)
The court held that unless there is explicit written authority filed and served, one plaintiff cannot testify on behalf of another. The mere service of a witness statement indicating such intention is insufficient. The objection by the defendants was upheld because the procedural requirements for representation were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEELC 2805 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Paul Kiprotich Ruttoh; Plaintiff: Milka Sote; Plaintiff: Rachel Chesire; Plaintiff: Sophie Sote Chepkwony; Plaintiff: Irene Chesire; Plaintiff: Stellah Turere Sote; Plaintiff: Winnie Kemei; Defendant: Abrahim Naibei Chesumbai; Defendant: Solomon Bichanga Moffat Ndege; Defendant: Josphat Wangila Wanyonyi; Defendant: John K. Cheruiyot; Defendant: Wilson Korir; Defendant: Silas Keremet Bukan; Defendant: William Kipkemoi Chepkwony; Defendant: Robinson Sakateko Nyasimi; Defendant: John Kemboi Chemaget
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Land Case 57 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Land Case / Interlocutory Ruling on Objection to Representation and Capacity of Plaintiffs
- Outcome
- Objection upheld; hearing adjourned for regularization of representation.
- Legal Topics
- Representation of Parties, Mental Capacity, Authority to Testify, Joinder of Parties
- 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
Paul Kiprotich Ruttoh
Plaintiff
Milka Sote
Plaintiff
Rachel Chesire
Plaintiff
Sophie Sote Chepkwony
Plaintiff
Irene Chesire
Plaintiff
Stellah Turere Sote
Plaintiff
Winnie Kemei
Plaintiff
Abrahim Naibei Chesumbai
Defendant
Solomon Bichanga Moffat Ndege
Defendant
Josphat Wangila Wanyonyi
Defendant
John K. Cheruiyot
Defendant
Wilson Korir
Defendant
Silas Keremet Bukan
Defendant
William Kipkemoi Chepkwony
Defendant
Robinson Sakateko Nyasimi
Defendant
John Kemboi Chemaget
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land Case / Interlocutory Ruling on Objection to Representation and Capacity of Plaintiffs
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether PW2 (the 4th plaintiff) can lawfully testify on behalf of other plaintiffs without written authority.
- 2 Whether the interests of the 6th plaintiff, who is alleged to be senile, are adequately protected in the proceedings.
- 3 Whether the hearing should proceed in light of the objection raised regarding representation and capacity.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that unless there is explicit written authority filed and served, one plaintiff cannot testify on behalf of another. The mere service of a witness statement indicating such intention is insufficient. The objection by the defendants was upheld because the procedural requirements for representation were not met. Additionally, the court recognized the special circumstance of the 6th plaintiff, who is alleged to be senile and thus under a disability, requiring the appointment of a proper representative to safeguard her interests. The court emphasized the need to regularize the representation before further proceedings to avoid wasting judicial time and risking the setting aside...
Court Disposition
Objection upheld; hearing adjourned for regularization of representation.
Orders
- The objection to PW2 testifying on behalf of other plaintiffs without written authority is upheld.
- Hearing is adjourned to allow regularization of representation for the plaintiffs, particularly the 6th plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KITALE
LAND CASE NO. 57 OF 2012
PAUL KIPROTICH RUTTOH.......................................1ST PLAINTIFF
MILKA SOTE..................................................................2ND PLAINTIFF
RACHEL CHESIRE.......................................................3RD PLAINTIFF
SOPHIE SOTE CHEPKWONY....................................4TH PLAINTIFF
IRENE CHESIRE...........................................................5TH PLAINTIFF
STELLAH TURERE SOTE..........................................6TH PLAINTIFF
WINNIE KEMEI............................................................7TH PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ABRAHIM NAIBEI CHESUMBAI............................1ST DEFENDANT
SOLOMON BICHANGA MOFFAT NDEGE...........2ND DEFENDANT
JOSPHAT WANGILA WANYONYI..........................3RD DEFENDANT
JOHN K. CHERUIYOT..............................................4TH DEFENDANT
WILSON KORIR.........................................................5TH DEFENDANT
SILAS KEREMET BUKAN.......................................6TH DEFENDANT
WILLIAM KIPKEMOI CHEPKWONY..................7TH DEFENDANT
ROBINSON SAKATEKO NYASIMI........................8TH DEFENDANT
JOHN KEMBOI CHEMAGET..................................9TH DEFENDANT
& 206 OTHERS
RULING
1. During her examination-in-chief, PW2, asserted that she was testifying on behalf of the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 6thand7th plaintiffs.
2. Mr. Teti objected to that assertion on the basis that there was no filed letter of authority empowering PW2 who is the 4th plaintiff to testify on behalf of anyone else.
3. In this court’s view unless the contrary intention is explicitly evinced at date of filing or while the suit is pending and with notice to other parties, plaintiffs enjoined to the suit are to be considered as separate plaintiffs for the purpose of that suit.
4. In the instant case, the defendants had notice that the PW2 would be testifying on behalf of the rest of her sisters; a written statement of witness PW2 filed on 23/1/2020 is on the record. That statement was served upon the defendants and they have never objected to that intention of the PW2 to testify on behalf of her sisters. Indeed when the suit proceeded to hearing on 15/11/2018, one of her sisters was present and she testified in this case.
5. However a novel twist in the case is that the PW2 has conceded that one of the plaintiffs who also doubles up as an administrator, Stella Turere Sote, is senile and cannot come to court. This court is not therefore dealing with the case of plaintiffs who are all on the same footing as far as mental capacity is concerned; one of them is under a disability.
6. So whereas Order 1 Rule 8of theCivil Procedure Rules provides that where numerous persons have an interest in a suit one or more of them may commence the proceedings and, unless the court otherwise orders, continue them as representing all, the special case of the 6th plaintiff herein demands that this court do inquire into whether her interests as a person and as an administrator of the estate of the late Samuel Cheruiyot Chesire are being properly catered for in the suit.
7. This court is duty bound to take such consideration as any further hearing whose proceedings may be probably set aside on the basis of lack of capacity of one party would be a waste of valuable judicial time and effort.
8. Though no medical report has been availed, I note that PW2 testified under oath and I must believe she is speaking the truth when she says that Stella Turere Sote is senile and incapable of coming to court.
9. I have said enough. The case of the 6th plaintiff is just but an example of why this court needs the rest of the plaintiffs to testify personally unless they file any document showing they have authorized PW2 in writing to represent them and testify in the suit. It is not too late in these proceedings and that can be done. The objection raised by Mr. Teti is hereby upheld.
10. As regards the 6th plaintiff, her special case demands that her counsel will determine the appropriate step to take to ensure that owing to her status, a representative properly appointed after due court procedures is available to testify on her behalf.
11. Consequently this hearing cannot proceed any further today and must be adjourned for the reasons stated. PW2 is hereby stood down. The ball is now in Mr. Tororei’s court to regularize the situation to enable further proceeding in the suit.
12. This suit will be mentioned on 14/7/2021 for further directions on which date Mr. Tororei will appraise court of progress made in getting the matter back on track.
It is so ordered.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KITALE ON THIS 23RD DAY OF JUNE, 2021.
MWANGI NJOROGE
JUDGE, ELC, KITALE.