[2013] KEHC 5870 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish any legal basis or nexus between herself and the intended second defendant, Gedion Muriuki, in relation to the subject matter of the suit. The allegations made were of a criminal nature and did not provide sufficient grounds for enjoining the second defendant in...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] KEHC 5870 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Susan Kathambi (suing as legal representative and administrator of the estate of the late Silas Kinoti M'Ringera s/o M'Ikwiga); Defendant: Ringera s/o Ikwiga; Defendant: Gedion Muriuki
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 101 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Joinder of Second Defendant
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the second defendant
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Enjoinder Application, Affidavit Evidence, Costs of Application
- 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
Susan Kathambi (suing as legal representative and administrator of the estate of the late Silas Kinoti M'Ringera s/o M'Ikwiga)
Plaintiff
Ringera s/o Ikwiga
Defendant
Gedion Muriuki
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Application for Joinder of Second Defendant
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant established a legal basis for enjoining Gedion Muriuki as the second defendant.
- 2 Whether the allegations against the intended second defendant justify his joinder to the suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish any legal basis or nexus between herself and the intended second defendant, Gedion Muriuki, in relation to the subject matter of the suit. The allegations made were of a criminal nature and did not provide sufficient grounds for enjoining the second defendant in a civil suit. The court concluded that the application for joinder was unsubstantiated and amounted to an attempt to inconvenience the second defendant without legal justification. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs awarded to the second defendant.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the second defendant
Orders
- The application dated 7th January, 2013 is dismissed.
- Costs of the application are awarded to the second defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CIVIL SUIT NO. 101 OF 2010
BETWEEN
SUSAN KATHAMBI (SUING AS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE AND ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF THE LATE
SILAS KINOTI M'RINGERA S/O M'IKWINGA.................................. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
RINGERA S/O IKWINGA.............................................................1ST DEFENDANT
GEDION MURIUKI........................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
By consent it was agreed that the application dated 7th January, 1013 be decided on the basis of the supporting Affidavit sworn by the plaintiff on 7th January, 2013 and the 2nd defendant's Replying Affidavit sworn on 16th January, 2013.
On the face of the Chamber Summons, the applicant stated that the application was premised on Order 1 Rules 10 and 25 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Article 159 (2) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. The application sought orders:
THAT GEDION MURIUKI be enjoined as the second defendant
in this suit.
THAT the costs for and incidental to this application be provided for.
One of the grounds in the Chamber Summons states:
“1. THAT the said GEDION MURIUKI is acting in cahoots with
the first defendant to evict the plaintiff from her land, destroying
her houses and crops, beating and assaulting her and threatening
to murder the plaintiff.”
This is a very serious allegation of a Criminal nature. It however does not provide any nexus between the plaintiff and the intended second defendant in this suit.
In his replying affidavit, the second defendant has opposed the application and pointed out that the plaintiff has not shown why she wanted to enjoin him in the suit. He has stated that he was a stranger to the allegations made by the applicant. According to him the applicant merely wanted to inconvenience him by bringing him into a dispute between her and her father-in-law who is the registered owner of the suit land.
Having looked at what the parties have deponed in their affidavits, I have come to the conclusion that he plaintiff has established no legal basis for enjoining the second defendant in this suit. Consequently, the applicant's application dated 7th January, 2013 is hereby dismissed with costs to the second defendant.
Written and Signed at Meru this 6th day of May, 2013.
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE
Delivered and signed in Open Court at Meru this.21ST day of June 2013. in the presence of:
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE