Automated Summary
Key Facts
The case involves a judicial review application by the Republic against the City Council of Nairobi and two others, with Pergollas Limited appearing ex parte. Eva RatiaLikimani sought to join as an interested party, alleging her forged signature was used in documents submitted by Pergollas Limited. The court dismissed her application, ruling she had no locus standi as she sold the suit property in 1987, her rights were extinguished, and she could not demonstrate how the proceedings would affect her interests. The decision, dated 20 July 2012, found the application unnecessary and an attempt to complicate a straightforward matter.
Issues
The court considered whether Eva RatiaLikimani, who sold the property in 1987, had a sufficient interest to be joined as an interested party despite the ex parte Applicant's opposition, which argued she had no locus standi and that her involvement would not add value to the proceedings. The applicant claimed her rights were affected by forged documents presented in the case, but the court ruled her interest had been extinguished by the sale.
Holdings
The court dismissed the application, determining that the applicant (Eva RatiaLikimani) has no interest in the proceedings between the ex parte Applicant and the Respondents. The applicant’s rights were extinguished by her 1987 sale of the property, and the court found her application unnecessary and an attempt to complicate a straightforward matter. The chamber summons dated 19th February 2010 was dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Remedies
- The court made no orders regarding costs in the dismissal of the application.
- The application was dismissed as misconceived, unnecessary, and an attempt to complicate a straightforward matter. The court ruled that the applicant had no interest in the proceedings and that joining her would not add value.
Legal Principles
The court dismissed the application on the grounds that the applicant (Eva RatiaLikimani) had no locus standi to be joined as an interested party, as her rights to the property were extinguished by a sale in 1987. The judge ruled that her involvement would not add value to the proceedings and that the application constituted an abuse of the court process.
Cited Statute
High Court Rules
Judge Name
M. Warsame
Passage Text
- The Applicant was the original proprietor of LR No. 12495/13, which she sold to Julius KagoiyaKubai and Mary Kubai in 1987. The Applicant however feels that she has a sufficient interest in the matter because the ex parte Applicant has presented falsehoods to the court by presenting documents which contain her forged signature.
- It is clear that the applicant has no interest in the matters or issues between the ex parte Applicant and the Respondents. There is no doubt that her rights were extinguished by a sale transaction conducted and concluded in 1987. It is not the case of the Applicant that the orders sought or likely to be given after full determination would be detrimental to her interests and rights. I am therefore in total agreement with learned counsel for the ex parte Applicant that the Applicant would not add any value to these proceedings. The orders, prayers and reliefs would not in any way affect her.
- For this reason, the chamber summons dated 19th February 2010 is dismissed, with no orders as to costs.