[2017] KEELC 214 (KLR)

[2017] KEELC 214 (KLR)

The court held that the application was incompetent because, under Order 1 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, only a defendant may join a third party to the proceedings. The plaintiff, therefore, lacked the procedural capacity to seek joinder of a third party. Furthermore, the application was brought under a...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEELC 214 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Suleiman M. Mwinyihaji; Defendant: Omar Salim Mwabei; Defendant: Victor Karhayu; Respondent: Pentum W. Musembi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 194 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Amended Notice of Motion Seeking Joinder and Injunctive Relief
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the defendants
Judges
LC Komingoi
Legal Topics
Joinder of Parties, Third Party Procedure, Interlocutory Injunctions, Amendment of Pleadings
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Joinder of Parties Third Party Procedure Interlocutory Injunctions Amendment of Pleadings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suleiman M. Mwinyihaji

Plaintiff

Omar Salim Mwabei

Defendant

Victor Karhayu

Defendant

Pentum W. Musembi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Amended Notice of Motion Seeking Joinder and Injunctive Relief

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff can join a third party to the proceedings under the Civil Procedure Rules.
  2. 2 Whether the application for joinder and injunctive relief is competent and properly before the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application was incompetent because, under Order 1 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, only a defendant may join a third party to the proceedings. The plaintiff, therefore, lacked the procedural capacity to seek joinder of a third party. Furthermore, the application was brought under a non-existent rule (Order 10 Rule 12), further undermining its competence. The proper course for the plaintiff would have been to seek leave to amend the plaint to include additional defendants. As a result, the application was dismissed with costs to the defendants.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the defendants

Orders

  • The amended notice of motion dated 3rd July 2017 is dismissed with costs to the defendants.