https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/7305

In re Estate of Madendedekele Kasembeli (Deceased) (Succession Cause 21 of 2024) [2026] KEHC 7305 (KLR) (21 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 7305 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Bungoma Succession Cause 21 of 2024 REA Ougo, J May 21, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF MADENDEDEKELE KASEMBELI (DECEASED) Between Mose Simiyu Khaemba (suing as the administrator of the estate of Dishon Sakhasia Kanyanya Alias Dishon Sakhasia Kanyanya 1st Objector Kennedy Kundu Sakhasia (suing as the administrator of the estate of Dishon Sakhasia Kanyanya alias Dishon Sakhasia Kanyanya 2nd Objector Richard Mukomi 3rd Objector and Kennedy Munene Chuaga 1st Intended Interested Party Sammy Njenga Karuga Kamau 2nd Intended Interested Party Reach International Children’s CentrE 3rd Intended Interested Party Marystella Nasambu Wafula (suing as the administrator and legal representative of the estate of John Wekesa Walubuka 4th Intended Interested Party Leonard Kisaka Wandili Muhuyi 5th Intended Interested Party Joyce Nafula Nyukuri 6th Intended Interested Party Okoth Ochieng Bonface 7th Intended Interested Party Wanjala Wekesa Harrison 8th Intended Interested Party Bramwel Waliaula Kisuya 9th Intended Interested Party Heide Monica Sifuna 10th Intended Interested Party Metrine Nabwile Makhanu (suing as the administrator and legal representative of the estate of Edwin Juma Walubuka) 11th Intended Interested Party Ruling 1.The Notice of Motion before me is dated 26th June 2025. It is filed by the applicants seeking leave to be joined in this succession cause as interested parties. The application invokes sections 1A, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, order 45, rule 1, and order 51, rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application is supported by the affidavits of the interested parties, together with the grounds set out in the Notice of Motion. 2.It was contended that the applicants purchased their respective portions of the suit land. The purchases arose from a subdivision pursuant to a sale agreement entered into by the objectors with the deceased during his lifetime. That the applicants had purchaser interests in the subdivided plots, namely 8411, 8412, 3398, 3598, 5394, 6486, 6489, 6487, 11045, 10440 & 5923. That, in fact, the applicants were in occupation and utilising those parcels of land, having taken possession thereof for the past 10 years. However, they were never made parties to the suit, yet an application for confirmation of grant was made. That, in fact, the administrators are aware of the said transactions. 3.The applicants pray that the application be allowed for the following reasons: they will be condemned unheard if the matter proceeds without their participation; they will be rendered landless by eviction; those parcels of land are their sole sources of livelihood; and it is in the interests of justice that the application be allowed as prayed. 4.The 2nd administrator filed a replying affidavit dated 19th August 2025, opposing the application. He deposed that the intended interested parties had no right to challenge the application for confirmation of grant, given the litigious history of the matter. He urged the court to caution itself against the conduct of the 2nd administrator, which amounted to intermeddling, as he was colluding with the objectors and the intended interested parties. He further deposed that neither the applicants nor the objectors had purchased or occupied the property from the deceased and were therefore not persons to be recognised as beneficiaries. In any event, no evidence was adduced to support their allegations. For those reasons, he urged this court to dismiss the application. 5.The 1st administrator likewise opposed the application. He filed a reply affidavit dated 17th November 2025. He deposed that the application was an abuse of the process of the court, as the applicants’ title deeds were tainted by fraud. He maintained that the deceased never sold the property to them and that, since the court revoked the confirmed grant, the land reverted to the deceased’s estate. He further submitted that, as purchasers, the applicants ought to claim their shares from the beneficiaries, not in this cause. He prayed that the application be dismissed with costs for want of merit. 6.The application was canvassed orally on 25th November 2025. Learned counsel Mr. Waswa appeared for the interested parties; Miss Wambani appeared for the objectors; Mr. Simiyu Wamalwa appeared for the 1st petitioner, while the 2nd petitioner appeared in person. Mr. Waswa submitted that the application was made in good faith, as the applicants were in possession of the subdivided parcels of land. He urged this court to consider their application and find that the respondents’ allegations were not supported by any evidence. He prayed that the application be allowed in the interests of justice. 7.For the 1st petitioner, Mr. Simiyu Wamalwa relied on the 1st petitioner’s response, praying that the application be dismissed with costs. On her part, Ms. Wambani supported the application, praying that it be allowed. The 2nd petitioner also relied on his reply affidavit, together with his written submissions dated 19th August 2025, praying that the application be dismissed in its entirety. The court was further informed that all parties were currently in occupation of the suit land. Analysis and Determination 8.I have considered the application, the rival responses, the parties’ submissions, and the law. The applicants seek to be joined as interested parties. The Supreme Court of Kenya, in the case of Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu & 5 others, SC Petition (Application) No 12 of 2013, set out the factors to be considered by a court in allowing or disallowing joinder of interested parties as follows:“The following elements emerge as applicable where a party seeks to be enjoined in proceedings as an interested party: One must move the court by way of a formal application. Enjoinment is not as of right, but at the discretion of the court; hence, sufficient grounds must be laid before the court, on the basis of the following elements:i.The personal interest or stake that the party has in the matter must be set out in the application. The interest must be clearly identifiable and must be proximate enough, to stand apart from anything that is merely peripheral.ii.The prejudice to be suffered by the intended interested party in case of non-joinder, must also be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court. It must also be clearly outlined, and not something remote.iii.Lastly, a party must, in its application, set out the case and/or submissions it intends to make before the court, and demonstrate the relevance of those submissions. It should also demonstrate that these submissions are not merely a replication of what the other parties will be making before the court.” 9.Has the application met the above threshold? The applicants have stated that they are beneficiaries of the deceased’s estate as purchasers. This assertion is strongly disputed by the petitioners, who deny those allegations. They further explained that they ought to claim from the respective beneficiaries rather than from the deceased’s estate, and that upon revocation of the grant, the property reverted to the deceased. 10.In my view, the interested parties have demonstrated why they should be joined in the suit. They have claimed purchaser interest. Such evidence can only be verified by the trial court upon examination of their claims in evidence. It is notable that the applicants contend that they purchased the properties and are currently in occupation of the suit land. Their occupation was not denied. 11.I find that if the interested parties are not enjoined in these proceedings, they will not ventilate their cases and demonstrate how they acquired the properties as they contend. They will likely suffer serious prejudice and possible eviction from the parcels they currently occupy. Finally, the interested parties have demonstrated what they intend to prove before the trial court; that is, that they acquired the properties and even have title deeds. I think this calls for joinder of the parties so the court can address the issues herein holistically. 12.Accordingly, the applicants’ Notice of Motion dated 26th June 2026 is hereby allowed. The applicants are hereby enjoined as interested applicants in this cause. The costs of the application shall abide the outcome of the dispute. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY FROM NAIROBI ON THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2026.R.E. OUGOJUDGEIn the presence of:Miss Wambani for the 1st, 2nd & 3rd Protestors/ ObjectorsMr. Juma for the interested partiesTitus Wekesa PolisiSimiyu Polisi Matendele