Case ID:173484

Mark K. Kariuki & 2 others (suing as Registered Trustees of Deliverance Church) v New Age Developers Construction Company Limited & 3 others [2021] eKLR

Case Metadata

Case Number:

Environment and Land Suit 813 of 2015

Parties:

Mark K. Kariuki, B. Masinde & George Gichana (suing as Registered Trustees of Deliverance Church) v New Age Developers Construction Company Limited, Samuel Chece Kibunja, Chief Land Registrar & Chase Bank (K) Ltd (In Receivership)

Date Delivered:

08 Apr 2021

Case Class:

Civil

Court:

Environment and Land Court at Nairobi

Case Action:

Ruling

Judge(s):

Samson Odhiambo Okong'o

Citation:

Mark K. Kariuki & 2 others (suing as Registered Trustees of Deliverance Church) v New Age Developers Construction Company Limited & 3 others [2021] eKLR

Advocates:

Mr. Waigwa for the 1st Defendant

Mr. Litoro for the 2nd Defendant

Ms. Wainaina for the 4th Defendant

Court Division:

Environment and Land

County:

Nairobi

Advocates:

Mr. Waigwa for the 1st Defendant

Mr. Litoro for the 2nd Defendant

Ms. Wainaina for the 4th Defendant

History Advocates:

One party or some parties represented

Case Outcome:

Application partly allowed.

Disclaimer:

The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information

REPUBLIC OF KENYA

IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT

AT NAIROBI

ELCC SUIT NO. 813 OF 2015

BISHOP MARK K. KARIUKI

BISHOP B. MASINDE

BISHOP GEORGE GICHANA

(Suing as Registered Trustees of Deliverance Church).........................................PLAINTIFFS

=VERSUS=

NEW AGE DEVELOPERS CONSTRUCTION

COMPANY LIMITED.....1

ST

DEFENDANT

SAMUEL CHECE KIBUNJA.........................................................................2

ND

DEFENDANT

CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR...........................................................................3

RD

DEFENDANT

CHASE BANK (K) LTD (IN RECEIVERSHIP)...........................................4

TH

DEFENDANT

RULING

The 4

th

defendant was added to this suit pursuant to the leave that was granted to the plaintiffs to amend their plaint on 4

th

September, 2017. In the amended plaint, the plaintiffs averred that they had entered into an agreement of sale with Baliga Limited and Bellina Wacuka Gatonye on 11

th

September, 2008 under which they were to purchase from them eleven (11) parcels of land among them Title No. Juja/Komo/Block 1/30 (“the suit property”) at a consideration of Kshs. 13,775,000/= of which they had paid Kshs. 13,275,000/=. The plaintiffs averred that while they were waiting for the said parcels of land to be transferred to them, the 1

st

and 2

nd

defendants through their servants and agents invaded the suit property and started digging trenches for the purposes of erecting a perimeter wall around the same.

The plaintiffs averred that the suit property was subdivided into two (2) portions namely, Title No. Juja/Komo/Block 1/3079 and Juja/Komo/Block 1/3080 and registered in the name of the 1

st

defendant. The plaintiffs averred that on 28

th

May, 2015, the 1

st

defendant charged Title No. Juja/Komo/Block 1/3080 to the 4

th

defendant to secure a loan of Kshs. 43,605,000/=. The plaintiffs averred that the 1

st

defendant failed to repay the loan advanced to it by the 4

th

defendant as a result of which the 4

th

defendant served it with a statutory notice of its intention to sell Title No. Juja/Komo/Block 1/3080 by public auction to recover the outstanding loan.

The plaintiffs sought among other reliefs, a declaration that the sub-division of Title No. Juja/Komo/Block 1/30 into Title No. Juja/Komo/Block 1/3079 and 3080 was illegal null and void, a declaration that the registration of a charge in respect of Title No. Juja/Komo/Block 1/3080 in favour of the 4

th

defendant was illegal, null and void, an order for the removal/discharge of the said charge registered on 28

th

May, 2015 and a permanent injunction to restrain the 4

th

defendant from selling, taking possession or interfering in any way with the parcels of land known as Title No. Juja/Komo/Block 1/1379 and 1380.

The 4

th

defendant filed a defence on 22

nd

January, 2019. The 4

th

defendant averred that on or about 16

th

March, 2017, it granted a loan of Kshs. 43,605,000/= to the 1

st

defendant which was secured by a charge over Title No. Juja/Komo/Block 1/3080 registered in the name of the 1

st

defendant. The 4

th

defendant averred that the charge that was executed in its favour by the 1

st

defendant over Title No. Juja/Komo/Block 1/3080 was lawful and that it was entitled to exercise its statutory power of sale over the said property following the 1

st

defendant’s default in loan repayment. The 4

th

defendant averred that the plaintiffs’ suit as against it was frivolous and vexatious the same having been brought with the sole aim of scuttling the exercise of its statutory power of sale that had accrued.

What is now before me is the 4

th

defendant’s application brought by way of Chamber Summons dated 16

th

January, 2020 in which the 4

th

defendant has sought leave to amend its statement of defence and to introduce a counter-claim. The application was brought on the grounds that the 4

th

defendant had advanced to the 1

st

defendant a loan of Kshs. 43,605,000/= that was secured by a charge over title No. Juja/Komo/Block 1/3080 and guaranteed by the 1

st

defendant’s directors. The 1

st

defendant had defaulted in its loan repayment obligations. When the 4

th

defendant served the 1

st

defendant with a statutory notice and attempted to sell Title No. Juja/Komo/Block 1/3080 the plaintiff filed the present suit alleging the 1

st

defendant had fraudulently acquired and charged the property to the 1

st

defendant. The 4

th

defendant stood to suffer loss if the court finds that Title No. Juja/Komo/Block 1/3080 was acquired by the 1

st

defendant and charged to the 4

th

defendant fraudulently unless the 4

th

defendant was allowed to file a counter-claim against the 1

st

defendant for the outstanding loan amount of Kshs. 51,484,757.53 as at 5

th

July, 2017. The 4

th

defendant averred further that it had been acquired by SBM Bank (K) Ltd. and as such it was necessary for SBM Bank (K) Ltd. to be made a defendant in place of Chase Bank (K) Ltd. (In receivership). The 4

th

defendant averred that no prejudice would be suffered by the respondents if the application was allowed.

The application was opposed by the 1

st

and 2

nd

defendants only through a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 8

th

August 2020. The 1

st

and 2

nd

defendants contended that the application was fatally defective and incompetent as it offended order 7 rules 3 and 8 of Civil Procedure Rules. The 1

st

and 2

nd

defendants contended that the orders sought could not be granted because what the 4

th

defendant intended to introduce as a counter-claim was not a counter-claim since it was a claim between the 4

th

defendant, the 1

st

defendant and other parties and did not involve the plaintiff. The 1

st

and 2

nd

defendants contended that a counter-claim must involve a plaintiff.

At the hearing of the application, the 4

th

defendant’s advocate argued that it was not mandatory that a plaintiff be included in a counter-claim. The 4

th

defendant’s advocate argued that a counter-claim can be brought against other parties who are not parties to the suit. The 4

th

defendant’s advocate relied on a number of authorities in support of her submissions and urged the court to allow the application.

In his submissions in reply, the 1

st

and 2

nd

defendant’s advocate argued that the 1

st

and 2

nd

defendant’s objection to the application was based on order 7 rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules that is worded in mandatory terms. He submitted that a counter-claim must include a plaintiff otherwise it ceases to be a counter-claim. The 1

st

and 2

nd

defendant’s advocate submitted that the counter-claim sought to be introduced by the 4

th

defendant did not have the plaintiff as a party. He submitted that the claim sought to be brought by the 4

th

defendant as a counter-claim can be brought as a separate suit or through third party proceedings or a notice against a co-defendant. The 1

st

and 2

nd

defendant’s advocate submitted that there were a number of authorities supporting this position which he promised to supply to the court.

I have considered the 4

th

defendant’s application together with the supporting affidavit. I have also considered the notice of preliminary objection filed by the 1

st

and 2

nd

defendants in opposition to the application. Finally, I have considered the submissions by the advocates for both parties. A perusal of the 4

th

defendant’s draft amended statement of defence and counter-claim leaves no doubt that the intended counter-claim is between the 4

th

defendant as plaintiff, the 1

st

defendant in the main suit as the 1

st

defendant and Annette Edna Muthoni Mbatia and Peter Mahu Muthee who are not yet parties to this suit as 2

nd

and 3

rd

defendants. There is no claim in the counter-claim against the plaintiff. It is a civil debt claim by the 4

th

defendant as a lender against the 1

st

defendant as a borrower and the 2

nd

and 3

rd

defendants in the intended counter-claim as guarantors. No relief has been sought by the 4

th

defendant in relation to Title No. Juja/Komo/Block 1/3080 which is the subject of the plaintiff’s claim in the main suit against the 1

st

to 4

th

defendants.

In my view, the 4

th

defendant’s claim against the 1

st

defendant and the two new parties named in the draft counter-claim is independent of the plaintiffs’ claim herein and is not dependent on the outcome of the plaintiff’s suit. The causes of action are different the same as the subject matter and the reliefs sought. After considering the provisions of order 7 Rules 3, 8 and 12 of the Civil Procedure Rules, I am in agreement with the 1

st

and 2

nd

defendants that generally, a counter-claim must include a plaintiff and that in the circumstances of this suit, 4

th

defendant’s counter-claim as framed should be brought by way of a separate suit. In my view, the counter-claim sought to be introduced by the 4

th

defendant will unnecessarily convolute these proceedings where the primary cause of action is fraud and illegal acquisition of land.

I am aware of the public policy that frowns against multiplicity of suits. As I have stated above, the 4

th

defendant’ claim is an independent claim against the 1

st

defendant and other parties. It is not related to the cause of action in the main suit and does not concern the other parties to the suit. The suit cannot be conveniently heard together with this suit and even if brought as a separate suit, it would not be necessary to consolidate the same with this suit. For the foregoing reasons, the filing of the 4

th

defendant’s claim against the 1

st

defendant and the two new parties as a separate suit does not amount to multiplicity of suits. I did not find the authorities cited by the 4

th

defendant useful as they were both distinguishable.

For the foregoing reasons, I will allow the 4

th

defendant’s application but partially. I therefore make the following orders in respect of the 4

th

defendant’s Chamber Summons application dated 16

th

January, 2020.

1. The 4

th

defendant is granted leave to amend its statement of defence by substituting Chase Bank (K) Ltd. (In receivership) with SBM Bank (K) Ltd. as the 4

th

defendant and in any other manner deemed necessary.

2. Leave to introduce a counter-claim in the nature set out in the draft 4

th

defendant’s amended statement of defence and counter-claim is refused.

3. The 4

th

defendant is at liberty to bring the claim by way of a separate suit.

4. The plaintiffs shall amend their plaint further to substitute Chase Bank (K) Ltd. with SBM Bank (K) Ltd. as the 4

th

defendant within 14 days of service of the amended statement of defence by the 4

th

defendant.

5. The costs of the application shall be in the cause.

DELIVERED AND DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2021

S. OKONG’O

JUDGE

Ruling delivered virtually through Microsoft Teams Video Conferencing Platform in the presence of:

N/A for the Plaintiffs

Mr. Waigwa for the 1

st

Defendant

Mr. Litoro for the 2

nd

Defendant

Ms. Wainaina for the 4

th

Defendant

Ms. C. Nyokabi-Court Assistant