Wilson Kipkemoi Birir & 7 others v Attorney General & 4 others; Joseph K Koech & 4 others (Interested Parties); Simon Kiprotich Too t/a Kaldit Sawmills & 2 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
E.O. Obaga
Judgment Date
September 24, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the case summary of Wilson Kipkemoi Birir & 7 others v Attorney General & 4 others [2020] eKLR. Delve into the legal implications and key insights from this significant court ruling.

Case Brief: Wilson Kipkemoi Birir & 7 others v Attorney General & 4 others; Joseph K Koech & 4 others (Interested Parties); Simon Kiprotich Too t/a Kaldit Sawmills & 2 others (Proposed Interested Parties) [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Wilson Kipkemoi Birir & Others v. The Hon. Attorney General & Others
- Case Number: ELC No. 712 of 2012
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Milimani
- Date Delivered: September 24, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): E.O. Obaga
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues before the court were:
1. Whether Simon Kiprotich Too, Joseph Kiprop Arap Samoei, and Esther Jebet Letting should be joined as interested parties in the suit.
2. Whether an order should be issued to stop any dealings with the parcel of land known as Nairobi Embakasi LR No. 24910 pending the hearing of the application.
3. Whether the 2nd and 4th Defendants should be ordered to deposit Ksh 90,418,750 in court.

3. Facts of the Case:
The plaintiffs, led by Wilson Kipkemoi Birir, filed suit against several defendants, including the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Lands, regarding a dispute over land designated as Nairobi Embakasi LR No. 24910. The 6th Interested Party/Applicant, Simon Kiprotich Too, claimed that he was allocated this plot in 1996 but was unable to process the title due to the file going missing. He alleged that the other interested parties fraudulently procured a fake lease and certificate of title to claim compensation for part of the land. The Applicant sought to have the court set aside a consent order recorded in 2013, which he argued was fraudulent.

4. Procedural History:
The case progressed through the Environment and Land Court, where the Applicant filed a notice of motion on October 10, 2019, seeking to be joined as an interested party and to stop dealings with the land in question. The application faced opposition from the 5th Defendant, who argued that the Applicant's claims were statute-barred and that there was no basis for issuing an injunction. The court considered the application and the opposition, including the lack of documentation confirming the consent order's authenticity.

5. Analysis:
- Rules: The court considered the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) regarding the joinder of parties, which allows for such actions at any stage of proceedings. The court also examined the principles governing injunctions and the requirements for granting them.

- Case Law: The court referenced *Lilian Wairimu Ngatho & Another v. Moki Savings Co-Operative Society Limited & Another (2014)e KLR*, which clarified that a party cannot be joined after a judgment or compromise of a suit. The case of *Carol Silock v. Kassim Sharrif Mohammed (2013)eKLR* was also cited, where joinder was allowed in the interest of justice, but the court noted that the current case involved ongoing litigation that rendered joinder unnecessary.

- Application: The court found that the Applicant's request to be joined was complicated by the fact that he had already initiated a separate suit regarding the same property. The court ruled that there was insufficient evidence to confirm the authenticity of the alleged consent order, thus complicating the matter of whether the consent could be set aside. The court determined that the Applicant did not meet the requirements for an injunction and that the request for the deposit of compensation funds lacked merit.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed the Applicant's application, stating that it lacked merit and that he had not sufficiently established his claims or the need for the requested orders. The dismissal of the application also highlighted the complexities surrounding land disputes and the importance of proper documentation in such cases.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions noted in the ruling.

8. Summary:
The court ruled against the Applicant, Simon Kiprotich Too, dismissing his application to be joined as an interested party and to stop dealings with the disputed land. The ruling underscores the challenges faced in land disputes in Kenya, particularly regarding the authenticity of documentation and the procedural requirements for joining parties in ongoing litigation. The decision serves as a reminder of the importance of timely action in land claims and the necessity of clear legal standing in such matters.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Wilson-Kipkemoi-Birir--7-others-v-Attorney-General--4-others-Joseph-K-Koech--4-others-Interested-Parties--Simon-Kiprotich-Too-t-a-Kaldit-Sawmills--2-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_1842_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries