[2014] KEHC 2928 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, being a society registered under the Societies Act, lacked the legal capacity to sue or be sued, as it is not a corporate body. This fact was not controverted by the applicant. Furthermore, the suit in question had already been finalized, with judgment delivered and only...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] KEHC 2928 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: The Law Society of Kenya; Defendant: Martyn Day; Defendant: Leigh Day; Defendant: Kenya Human Rights Commission; Defendant: Gitu wa Kahengeri; Applicant: Mau Mau Governing Council of Kenya
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 457 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Joinder as Co Plaintiff
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- DA Onyancha
- Legal Topics
- Joinder of Parties, Legal Capacity, Finality of 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
The Law Society of Kenya
Plaintiff
Martyn Day
Defendant
Leigh Day
Defendant
Kenya Human Rights Commission
Defendant
Gitu wa Kahengeri
Defendant
Mau Mau Governing Council of Kenya
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Joinder as Co Plaintiff
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant, a society registered under the Societies Act, has legal capacity to be enjoined as a co-plaintiff in the suit.
- 2 Whether the applicant can be joined as a co-plaintiff after the suit has been finalized and judgment delivered.
- 3 Whether failure to enjoin all members of the class represented by the plaintiff constitutes discrimination or injustice.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, being a society registered under the Societies Act, lacked the legal capacity to sue or be sued, as it is not a corporate body. This fact was not controverted by the applicant. Furthermore, the suit in question had already been finalized, with judgment delivered and only distribution of funds remaining. There was no practical or legal basis for admitting a new plaintiff at this stage. The court also noted that the applicant and its members had the opportunity to seek joinder before the suit was determined but failed to do so. Allowing the application would be futile and contrary to procedural law. Consequently, the application was dismissed for lack of...
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 22nd January, 2014 is dismissed with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NUMBER 457 OF 2013
THE LAW SOCIETY OF KENYA. ……………………………. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MARTYN DAY
LDIGH DAY
KENYA HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION …………… DEFENDANTS
GITU WA KAHENGERI
AND
MAU MAU GOVERNING COUNCIL OF KENYA. ....…… APPLICANT
R U L I N G
The application before the court is the Notice of Motion dated 22nd January, 2014. It is brought by a Third Party and seeks mainly that the applicant therein: - Mau Mau Governing Council of Kenya: - be enjoined in this suit as a co-plaintiff.
The grounds upon which the application is based are that: -
The applicant, which is registered under the Societies Act, was so registered on 13th November, 2013.
It represents the Kenya Mau Mau War Veterans whose interest is to be compensated by the British government, an issue which is the substance of the cause of action of the Plaintiff in this suit.
The applicant has a substantial interest in the cause of action warranting it to be enjoined in this suit.
The applicant’s interest was hijacked by others including the Plaintiff who failed to enjoin all the members of the class the Plaintiff presently represents.
The applicant accordingly said that in not representing in this suit, all the Mau Mau members in Kenya, including those now forming the applicant society, the Plaintiff erred and discriminated against the applicants and that such an unconstitutional and unjust and unfair situation, can only be corrected by enjoining the applicant.
This application is brought under Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application was seriously opposed by the Defendants in this suit but fully supported by the Plaintiff. The Defendants’ position is that the applicant does not demonstrate a sufficient interest and qualification to qualify to be enjoined as a co-plaintiff in this suit. They stated that the applicant is not qualified to be a party in any suit because it is not a corporate body but merely a society registered under the Societies Act and has no legal capacity to sue or be sued. Secondly, they argued that the suit into which they seek to be enjoined is a finalized and finally determined suit, remaining only for the distribution of the judgment funds to the decree-holders. In those circumstances, they, argued, the applicants cannot possibly have any interest in a judgment belonging to others. Thirdly, the Defendants argued that when the judgment and decree was obtained, the applicant herein was not in existence as it had not been registered. That is to say, that at the time the cause of action was filed in court as this suit and when the cause of action was realized, the applicant was not in legal or factual existence. Finally, the Defendants also argued that this suit itself may turn out to be incompetent under Order V rule 21-22 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
I have carefully considered the application. It has been brought to the attention of this court that the applicant has no capacity to sue or be sued, the Applicant being a mere society registered under the Societies Act and not more. That fact, although strongly raised by the Defendant was not denied nor controverted in any way. If this court accordingly allowed this application, it would have done so in vain as the applicant has no capacity to be a party.
Secondly, the suit into which the applicant wishes to be admitted as a Plaintiff, has already been finalized. There is no position for a Plaintiff still open as the present plaintiff is already a decree holder and the prospects of reversing the process has not been demonstrated to be possible in law. The court cannot, therefore, be able to admit the applicant as a co-plaintiff as that would not be practical.
Finally, the applicant’s members, including their formed clubs were always available and could have sought to be enjoined in the suit before the suit was finally determined. They did not however, do so until in the view of this court, it was too late. This court cannot help parties who heavily slept on their rights until too late.
In the above circumstances, this application raises no merit or practical justification and must fail. It is hereby dismissed with costs. Orders accordingly.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 16th day of September, 2014.
……………………………………….
D A ONYANCHA
JUDGE