Samuel Matunde Muchina v Samuel Kiptoo Ruto & 9 others; Joshua Kirwa Bett (Suing as the Power of Attorney for Priscilla Jebungei Kirwa) & 7 others [2020] eKLR Case Summary

Court
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Category
Civil
Judge(s)
M. A. Odeny
Judgment Date
June 09, 2020
Country
Kenya
Document Type
PDF
Number of Pages
3
Explore the 2020 eKLR case summary of Samuel Matunde Muchina v Samuel Kiptoo Ruto & others, focusing on the legal implications and outcomes of the judgment.

Case Brief: Samuel Matunde Muchina v Samuel Kiptoo Ruto & 9 others; Joshua Kirwa Bett (Suing as the Power of Attorney for Priscilla Jebungei Kirwa) & 7 others (Interested Parties/Applicants) [2020] eKLR

1. Case Information:
- Name of the Case: Samuel Matunde Muchina v. Samuel Kiptoo Ruto & 9 Others
- Case Number: E&L Case No. 133 of 2014
- Court: Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
- Date Delivered: June 9, 2020
- Category of Law: Civil
- Judge(s): M. A. Odeny
- Country: Kenya

2. Questions Presented:
The central legal issues presented before the court include:
1. Whether the court can entertain an application for joinder of interested parties after judgment has been delivered.
2. Whether the applicants have met the necessary threshold to be enjoined as interested parties in the case.
3. Whether the applicants are entitled to a stay of execution of the decree pending the hearing of their application.

3. Facts of the Case:
The plaintiff, Samuel Matunde Muchina, initiated a suit against the defendants, including Samuel Kiptoo Ruto, alleging that they were trespassers on the land parcel UASIN GISHU/NDALAT/30. The applicants, who sought to be enjoined as interested parties, claimed they were unaware of the existing suit until after judgment was delivered on December 5, 2019. They asserted that they had legal interests in the land, having purchased it from the plaintiff on various dates, and had established permanent homes there. The applicants further contended that the plaintiff failed to disclose a related civil suit, which was still pending.

4. Procedural History:
The case progressed through the Environment and Land Court, where the applicants filed an application on January 22, 2020, seeking to be enjoined as interested parties and for a stay of execution of the decree. The parties agreed to submit their arguments in writing. The respondents opposed the application, asserting that the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the motion since the suit had already been concluded.

5. Analysis:
Rules:
The court considered Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which allows for the addition of parties at any stage of proceedings. However, the court noted that the application for joinder is only applicable when proceedings are ongoing.

Case Law:
The court referenced several precedents, including *J M K v M W M & Another* and *Kenya Airports Authority v. Mitu-Bell Welfare Society & 2 Others*, emphasizing that a court becomes functus officio after delivering a judgment, which limits its ability to entertain further applications unless there are ongoing proceedings. The ruling in *Merry Beach Limited v. Attorney General & 18 Others* was also cited, indicating that post-judgment joinder is generally not permissible unless damages are yet to be assessed.

Application:
In applying the rules and case law to the facts, the court reasoned that since the case had been concluded and there were no pending assessments of damages, the application for joinder was not warranted. The applicants failed to demonstrate an actionable interest that justified their inclusion in a concluded case. Furthermore, the court noted that the 2nd applicant lacked the necessary authority to represent the estate of a deceased person.

6. Conclusion:
The court dismissed the application for joinder of interested parties and for a stay of execution, concluding that the case was finalized and that the applicants had other avenues to pursue their claims. The decision underscores the principle that once a judgment has been rendered, the court's jurisdiction over the matter is effectively terminated.

7. Dissent:
There were no dissenting opinions in this case, as it was a ruling delivered by a single judge.

8. Summary:
The Environment and Land Court ruled against the applicants seeking to be enjoined as interested parties in a concluded case regarding land ownership. The court emphasized the finality of its judgment and the lack of ongoing proceedings, thus denying the application and affirming the principle of functus officio. This ruling highlights the importance of timely participation in legal proceedings and the limitations on post-judgment interventions.

Document Summary

Below is the summary preview of this document.

  • Samuel-Matunde-Muchina-v-Samuel-Kiptoo-Ruto--9-others-Joshua-Kirwa-Bett-Suing-as-the-Power-of-Attorney-for-Priscilla-Jebungei-Kirwa--7-others-[2020]-eKLR-Case-Summary_2096_0.jpg

This is the end of the summary preview.

Related Documents

View all summaries