[2013] KEELC 23 (KLR)
The court held that the applicants, not being parties to the suit, cannot seek to set aside the judgment or arrest the delivery of a ruling affecting only the named defendants. The plaintiffs can only enforce orders against those they have sued, and the eviction application does not relate to the applicants. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEELC 23 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Samuel Kiplagat Namini & 2 Others; Defendant: The Town Council of Eldama Ravine & 8 Others; Applicant: Charles Chebet, Reuben Chelagat and Michael Kimani (on behalf of 72 others)
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 786 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Judgment and Stay Execution
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Eviction Orders, Joinder of Parties, Setting Aside Judgment
- 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
Samuel Kiplagat Namini & 2 Others
Plaintiff
The Town Council of Eldama Ravine & 8 Others
Defendant
Charles Chebet, Reuben Chelagat and Michael Kimani (on behalf of 72 others)
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Judgment and Stay Execution
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether non-parties to the suit can seek to set aside judgment and consequential orders.
- 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to a stay of execution and leave to defend the suit.
- 3 Whether the court should arrest delivery of a pending ruling on eviction.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the applicants, not being parties to the suit, cannot seek to set aside the judgment or arrest the delivery of a ruling affecting only the named defendants. The plaintiffs can only enforce orders against those they have sued, and the eviction application does not relate to the applicants. The applicants' rights, if any, were not determined in the suit, and they are at liberty to file their own proceedings. The application to stay the ruling and execution was therefore found to be misplaced and declined.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- No orders arresting delivery of the ruling scheduled for tomorrow are issued.
- No interim orders are granted.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA AT ELDORET
E&L 786 OF 2012
Formerly HCC 212 of 2011
Formerly NKR HCC 81 of 2008
SAMUEL KIPLAGAT NAMINI & 2 OTHERS …....................................PLAINTIFFS
VS
THE TOWN COUNCIL OF ELDAMA
RAVINE & 8 OTHERS...........................................................................DEFENDANTS
RULING
An application has been filed today by three persons namely Charles Chebet, Reuben Chelagat and Michael Kimani on their behalf and on behalf of 72 others.
The substantive prayer in their application is that they want the judgment and all other consequential orders set aside. They also want to be given leave to defend this suit. Their reasons are that they were not named as defendants in this suit but they are on the suit land and may be affected by an imminent eviction.
This suit was filed by the plaintiffs against 9 defendants seeking declaratory and eviction orders over the land parcels L.R. No. 498/654 and L.R. No. 498/655. I heard the matter and delivered Judgment on 17/7/2013. I inter alia ordered the 2nd-9th defendants to vacate the suit premises within 30 days of service of the Judgment. Through an application dated 31/10/2013, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking orders of eviction. I heard that application on 7/11/2013 and deferred the ruling to 19/11/2013. The applicants herein want a stay of delivery of that ruling pending hearing of this application interpartes. They also at this stage want a stay of execution of the Judgment.
I have considered the application. I note that the applicants are not parties to this suit. It follows that the plaintiffs can only enforce orders against the persons they have sued. The application for eviction does not relate to them. I therefore do not see why I should arrest the delivery of that ruling. This matter has already been heard and determined and the rights between the parties determined. The applicants are not among the parties among whom rights were determined. If they have a right of their own, they are free to file suit. On my part, without making any final determination on the substance of the application, I think this application is misplaced.
For the above reasons, I decline to issue any orders arresting delivery of the ruling scheduled for tomorrow. Neither do I issue any interim orders. I direct that this application be mentioned tomorrow so that I can give a date inter-partes. I also direct that it be served forthwith.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED THIS 18TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2013
JUSTICE MUNYAO SILA
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT ELDORET
Read in open Court
In the Presence of:-