Mwambeja Ranching Company Limited& another v Kenya National Capital Corporation Limited (Kenyac) & 6 others [2015] eKLR

Key Facts

Issues

• The court addressed the joinder of National Bank of Kenya and Shimbaland Ranching Company Limited as defendants. The Plaintiff claimed that their joinder was necessary to resolve the issues, but the court held that joinder was res judicata as it had been previously determined and dismissed.
• The court considered the application for an inhibition order under Section 68 of the Land Registration Act to prevent registration of any dealings with the suit property pending the suit. The Plaintiff argued that the sale was illegal and that joinder of parties was necessary. The court found that the issue was res judicata as previous applications for similar relief had been dismissed.

Holdings

• The court dismissed the application for an order of inhibition on the suit property, finding that the matter had been previously adjudicated and is barred by the principle of res judicata. The court ruled that the sale of the property had already been determined in prior proceedings, and no new facts or issues were presented to warrant a different outcome.
• The court denied the Plaintiff's request to join the National Bank of Kenya and Shimbaland Ranching Company Limited as parties to the suit. It held that the issues of joinder had been conclusively addressed in previous rulings and that the proposed parties were not necessary to resolve the case, as the principal defendant (KENYAC) remained in the suit.

Remedies

• The court dismissed the plaintiff's application dated 3rd June 2014 insofar as it related to inhibition, joinder of parties, and the proposed amendment to the plaint.
• The costs of the dismissed application are to be borne by the respondents (defendants).

Legal Principles

• The court considered the threshold for granting an inhibition order (akin to a prohibitory injunction) under Section 68 of the Land Registration Act. It evaluated whether the Plaintiff satisfied the conditions for such an order, including risk of alienation, arguable case, and necessity to preserve the suit property.
• The court applied the principle of res judicata to dismiss the Plaintiff's application, ruling that the issues had been previously adjudicated and concluded by both the High Court and the Court of Appeal. The court emphasized that re-litigating similar matters under different legal provisions would violate the doctrine, as the core facts and claims were already addressed in prior rulings.

Precedent Name

• Giella v Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd
• Falcon Properties Ltd v Tom Chore Odiara & 2 Others
• Kanorero River Farm Ltd & 3 Others v National Bank of Kenya Ltd
• Japhet Kaimenyi M'ndatho v M'mbwiria
• Wilson Waithaka Gitau v Kenya Winston Company Limited
• Ze Yung Yang v Nova Industrial Properties Ltd
• Suleiman v Amboseli Resort Ltd
• Ben Mwangi Kihia v National Bank of Kenya
• John Gitau Mungai v Stephen Kabebe & Others
• Philip Mwangi Githinji v Grace Wakarima Githinji
• Bomet Beer Distributors v Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd & 4 Others
• Simon Njoroge Mburu v Consolidated Bank of Kenya Ltd
• Kenya Hotel Properties Limited v Willisden Investments Limited & 6 others
• Victor Mabachi & Another Vs. Nurtum Bates Limited

Cited Statute

• Civil Procedure Rules
• Advocates (Practice) Rules
• Land Registration Act, 2012
• Land Act, 2012
• Evidence Act
• Civil Procedure Act

Passage Text

• “The upshot of all the foregoing is that, the application by the Plaintiff dated 3rd June 2014 in so far as it relates to inhibition, joinder of parties and the proposed amendment thereto of the plaint, is not meritorious and is hereby dismissed with costs to the Respondents.”
• “The law as I understand it is that, where the principal is disclosed you cannot sue the agent. See the decision of the Court of Appeal Victor Mabachi & Another Vs. Nurtum Bates Limited [2013] eKLR, Civil Appeal No. 247 of 2005 (unreported). All issues in this case will be resolved as between the Plaintiff and the Defendant...”
• “It will not escape anybody's observation that although this application was brought under several provisions of the law, the main thrust is that it was essentially an application seeking another injunction order. A rose flower by any other name will smell the same. The application was heard by the superior court (Okwengu, J) who in a ruling dated and delivered on 29th February 2008 dismissed it with costs stating inter alia as follows:- To date, almost (10) years after the Plaintiff's suit was filed, the Plaintiff has made no effort to have this suit finalized nor has it made any payment...”