Flora Ola Limited v Kenneth Kipchomuso, Thomas Komen Ruto, Musa Chemase & John K Lokorio [2015] KEELC 299 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE ENVIRONMENT   AND LAND COURT OF KENYA

AT   NAKURU

ELC NO 241  OF  2014

FLORA OLA LIMITED……………………………..PLAITNIFF

VERSUS

KENNETH  KIPCHOMUSO………….…..1ST  DEFENDANT

THOMAS  KOMEN RUTO ………….……2ND  DEFENDANT

MUSA  CHEMASE …………………………3RD  DEFENDANT

AND

JOHN  K   LOKORIO ….....……….…..INTERESTED  PARTY

RULING

(Application to be enjoined as interested party; application dismissed).

1. The application  before me   is  that dated  27th   January  2015  filed by one  John  K  Lokorio who wishes to  be enjoined to this suit  as an  interested party. The  application is said  to  be brought vide the  provisions  of  Order  40  Rule  7  and  10; and  Order  1 Rule  10,  of  the Civil  Procedure  Rules; and sections 1A, 1B and  3A  of the  Civil  Procedure  Act.

2. Apart  from the  prayer for  joinder, the  applicant  also  wants orders  to set  aside,  discharge,  or  vary the  orders of court made on  22nd  January  2015, and  order   that  status  quo ante  be  maintained  pending  the  hearing  and  determination of this suit.

3. The application is supported by the affidavit of the applicant and is opposed by the  plaintiff, who  filed  a replying  affidavit.

4. Before I  delve  into  the  gist of the  application,  I  think  it is  important that I set  out the background  leading to this  application.

5.  This suit was commenced by  way  of  plaint  filed on 22nd  August 2014.  The persons sued are three, Kenneth  Kipchomuso, Thomas  Komen  Ruto, and  Musa  Chemase.  The  case of the  plaintiff  is that she  is the proprietor of the land parcel Solai/Ndungiri Block 10/241 (Olbonata) which is land measuring about 16. 188 Hectares. The case of the plaintiff is that the three defendants trespassed into her land on or about the   25th and  26th  March 2014,  and  destroyed  the fence and grazed  their  livestock. In the suit, the plaintiff has asked for orders of permanent injunction against the three defendants.

6. On 30th September 2014, the plaintiff filed an application for injunction to restrain the defendants from any further interference with the suit property pending   hearing and determination of the case.

7. The defendants filed a response to the application by way of   Grounds of opposition and a Replying Affidavit.

8. I heard the application for injunction and allowed it through my ruling of 22nd January 2015.

9. It is after that ruling that this application was filed on 28th January 2015. In the supporting affidavit, Mr  Lokorio  has deposed  that he is   actually  the  person in possession of the suit property. He has deposed that there have been two  other suits touching on the subject  matter  herein, being  the cases  Nakuru ELC  No.304  of   2012 and  Nakuru ELC  No. 634  of 2013. The  former  was a case filed  by  Raymark   Ltd  and the  later  by  Flora Ola  Ltd  ( the  plaintiff herein ). In both cases, John  Lokorio was  defendant. He has averred  that the two cases  were withdrawn  but  that  prior  to the withdrawal of the suit  Nakuru ELC  No.304 of  2012,  there  were orders  in his favour.  The subject matter in that suit was a land parcel  Solai/Ndungiri Block 10/217 ( Olbonata) measuring 336 hectares. He has averred that to his  knowledge, this  land  has never  been sub-divided, disposed of, or alienated  to the  plaintiff   herein. He has averred that there were court orders stopping any dealings over that property. He has stated that the plaintiff’s title deed was issued on 16th September 2013 when the stay orders were still in place. It  is his view  that the plaintiff herein withdrew the suit ELC No.634/2013 when they found  him “ too hot  to  handle”  and are going for  his  agents  through  this   suit. He has averred that if he is allowed to participate in these proceedings, all issues will be adjudicated with finality. It is his position that the proceedings herein will affect his interests.

10. In  its reply filed  through one  Kipngetich arap  Korir Bett, the plaintiff has averred inter alia that the  proposed  interested party has not  stated  what claim  or  cause  of action he  has against  the  plaintiff  which  he  intends to  pursue  in this  suit. It is deposed that if he intends to pursue a claim, he can only do so as plaintiff or defendant, and not interested party.  It is also pointed out that the other two suits have been withdrawn.

11. I have  considered the  matter  and taken  note of the submissions  of  Mr  Karanja  Mbugua  for  the applicant  who  is the  only  counsel  who  appeared  at the  hearing  of the  application.

12. I can see for myself that Mr Lokorio wants to come  into these proceedings as interested party, and not  defendant.  In addition, he wants the setting aside of the orders of injunction. There is no express provisions in the Civil Procedure  Rules  for  the  joinder  of persons  as interested parties, but courts usually use the flexibility  of the  provisions  of  order  1 Rule 10 (2)  which  allows  the joinder of a  person,  if the presence  of such person  is  deemed necessary for the  proper determination  of the  matter  before court.

13. This suit is a suit of trespass against 3 persons.  I cannot tell why the plaintiff chose to sue these three persons and not John Lokorio. True,  she  had sued John  Lokorio in the suit   ELC  No. 634/2013 but  I do not   know  why  the plaintiff   thought fit  to  withdraw that suit.

14. They must have had their own reasons and it is not for me to second guess why.

15. Going  through his  application, John  Lokorio  seems  to suggest  that  he  has an  interest in the  land in issue. But his interest does not come out clearly. In his   affidavit he has averred that Raymark  Ltd  assigned  the land  parcel/Solai Ndungiri Block 10/217 ( Olbonata) to  him. However, the connection  between  that  land   and this  land  is not  clear  to me.  Mr.  Lokorio appears  to allude  to a  sub-division  but  it  has  not  been  shown  to  me that   the  suit  property  ( parcel No. 241) arose out  of  a  sub-division  of the  parcel No.217. Assuming  that  John  Lokorio claims  the whole of the  parcel  No.217, and  that the suit  property is a sub-division of the  parcel  No.217,  I   ask  myself why Mr. Lokorio does   not  deem fit to  file  a suit  of his  own to  claim whatever  he  believes rightfully belongs  to him. He himself has  not   stated what   he  wants to do  in this  suit.  If  it  is to  pursue his claim over the land  parcel  No.217  or any sub-division  thereof , then  what he needs  to do   is to file  suit, not to come to these proceedings as  interested party. The suit herein   is a claim of trespass against the three  named  persons. I do  not  see the  necessity  of  Mr  Lokorio in these  proceedings  unless  the  parties  themselves  elect to bring him to the  proceedings and  make certain   claims against   him.

16.  I therefore disallow the application for joinder as   interested party.  If   I am   wrong, there would still be  no   prejudice  suffered by Mr.  Lokorio who is free to file a case of his own.

17. Having dismissed the prayer for  joinder as interested party,  I do  not  see the  need of canvassing the  other  prayers, for they are  now   prayers   made  by a  person  not  a party  to this case.

18. The  upshot  of the above  is that  I find  no merit  in the  application dated  27th  January  2015 and it is hereby dismissed with costs.

Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nakuru this 9th day of   July   2015.

MUNYAO SILA

JUDGE

ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT

AT NAKURU

In presence of: -

N/A  for  M/s    Kale   Maina &   Bundotich  Advocates  for  plaintiff/respondent.

N/A   for M/s  Karanja  Mbugua  &  Co   Advocates  for  proposed  interested party/applicant.

Janet  : CA

MUNYAO SILA

JUDGE

ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT

AT NAKURU