https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2026/38

Attorney General on Behalf of the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government v Nguruman Limited & 2 others (Petition (Application) E015 of 2025) [2026] KESC 38 (KLR) (15 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KESC 38 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Supreme Court of Kenya Petition (Application) E015 of 2025 MK Koome, CJ & P, PM Mwilu, DCJ & VP, SC Wanjala, N Ndungu, I Lenaola & W Ouko, SCJJ May 15, 2026 Between Attorney General on Behalf of the Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government Appellant and Nguruman Limited Respondent and John Kamanga & Isaac Kiresian (Suing on their own behalf and on behalf of 14,264 members and/or residents of Shompole Group Ranch, Ol Kiramatian Group Ranch, Pakase Irrigation Scheme and Entasopia Irrigation Scheme) 1st Proposed Interested Party The County Government Of Kajiado 2nd Proposed Interested Party (Being an application for joinder of the applicants as interested parties in SC Petition No. E015 of 2025 Environment and Land Petition 18 of 2018 ) Ruling RepresentationMr. Oscar Eredi for the Appellant/1st Respondent (Attorney General Chambers)Ms. Jerioth Muthoni for the 2nd Respondent (Ahmednassir Abdullahi Advocates LLP)Ms. Cecilia Misiati h/b for Prof. Tom Ojienda, SC for the Proposed Interested Parties(Prof. Tom Ojienda & Associates) 1.Upon perusing the Notice of Motion dated 16th April 2025 and filed on 29th April 2025 by the proposed interested parties/applicants pursuant to Articles 50, 159(2) and 163(4)(a) of the Constitution; Rules 3(1), (2) & (6), 24 and 31 of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020 and Section 6 of the Community Land Act, Cap 287 which seek inter alia that:“…2.This Honourable Court be pleased to grant leave to the applicants to be joined as interested parties in the present appeal;3.Upon granting order no. 2 above, the Honourable Court be pleased to grant the applicants an opportunity to file a response and submissions to the appeal upon service; …”; and 2.Upon considering the grounds on the face of the Motion, the affidavit sworn on even date by John Kamanga, the chairman of Ol Kiramatian Group Ranch, and the submissions dated 28th April 2025 in support thereof, the tenor of which is that, John Kamanga is duly authorised to swear the affidavit on behalf of the 1st applicant. It is alleged that, the 1st applicant’s members are the legitimate owners of a portion of 20,000 Ha of Narok/Nguruman/Kamorora/1 (suit property) which was illegally excised from their land; following adjudication, Nguruman Kamorora Group Ranch was registered as the proprietor of the suit property on 19th June 1975 and a certificate of title issued thereto indicating the acreage as 6,970Ha.; however, on 28th August 1984 a new certificate of title was issued to Nguruman Kamorora Group Ranch and this time around the acreage was indicated as 26,993 Ha; subsequently, the title to the suit property was transferred to Nguruman Limited, the 2nd respondent herein; and 3.Bearing in mind the 1st applicant’s contention that, on account of their entitlement to the suit property, its members entered and grazed their livestock thereon. As a result, the 2nd respondent instituted a plethora of suits before the superior courts below premised on trespass, the last in time being Narok ELC Petition No. 18 of 2018, which culminated in the present appeal (SC Petition No. E015 of 2025) before this Court. The aforementioned suits purely dealt with the issue of trespass on the suit property and not ownership thereof. It is alleged that, the 2nd respondent intentionally omitted the 1st applicant from Narok ELC Petition No. 18 of 2018 with the aim of circumventing the determination of the core question of ownership of the suit property and thereby misleading the court. The Attorney General, the 1st respondent herein, in the aforementioned suit vide a cross petition brought to the trial court’s attention the existence of Kajiado ELC 430 of 2017 which was instituted by the 1st applicant against the 2nd respondent amongst other persons. That, Kajiado ELC 430 of 2017 relates to the question of ownership and/or validity of the 2nd respondent’s title to the suit property, and is still pending before the Environment and Land Court; nonetheless, the trial court (Kullow, J) by a judgment dated 28th July 2021 found in favour of the 2nd respondent and awarded it compensation for the suit property; and thereafter, the Court of Appeal by a judgment dated 28th February 2025, subject of the appeal before this Court, partially upheld the compensation awarded to the 2nd respondent; and 4.Noting that the 1st applicant claims that, the abovementioned superior courts violated its members’ right to fair hearing and property contrary to Articles 50 and 40 of the Constitution respectively; in particular, by awarding the 2nd respondent compensation, the two courts summarily determined the issue of ownership of the suit property as well as Kajiado ELC 430 of 2017 without according the 1st applicant a hearing; in turn, their right to property was violated; since the question of ownership of the suit property is in dispute and pending for determination in Kajiado ELC 430 of 2017, the issue of compensation for the suit property should have been held in abeyance until determination of the former. In totality, the 1st applicant contends that, it has demonstrated its direct interest in the appeal before this Court; it would suffer prejudice if not accorded an opportunity to participate in the appeal to the extent of unearthing the true ownership of the suit property; in any event, any orders affirming or commenting on ownership of the suit property would affect the 1st applicant’s claim in Kajiado ELC No. 430 of 2017; and 5.Further noting the contention that, the 2nd applicant’s involvement in the appeal is anchored on its mandate to protect the interests of communities over unregistered community land; and that the applicants have met the requisite threshold to be joined as interested parties to the appeal before this Court as set out in, Muruatetu & Another v Republic; Kenya National Commission on Human Rights & 2 Others (Interested Parties); Death Penalty Project (Intended Amicus Curiae) [2016] KESC 12 (KLR) (Muruatetu); and 6.Upon examining the 2nd respondent’s replying affidavit sworn on 26th May 2025 by Martin Richard Steyn, its Director, and submissions dated 27th February 2026, the totality of which is that, John Kamanga and Isaac Kiresian lack locus standi to lodge the application on behalf of the applicants; since firstly, the Group Ranches are body corporates that can sue or be sued in their own capacities; secondly, the 2nd applicant can sue or be sued in its own name under Section 6(1) of the County Governments Act, and in any case, John Kamanga and Isaac Kiresian have not provided any authority to act or file pleadings on behalf of the Group Ranches; and consequently, the Motion ought to be struck out; and 7.Furthermore the 2nd respondent argues that, the 1st applicant has not attached any title to substantiate its claim of ownership of the suit property; moreover, upon completion of the Nguruman Kamorora Adjudication on 1st June 1973, the 1st applicant’s members lodged their objections which were dismissed on 10th January 1974, and no appeal was lodged thereafter; therefore, a certificate of finality was published on 9th November 1974 to the effect that the Nguruman Kamorora Adjudication Register was final and Nguruman Kamorora Group Ranch was registered as the absolute proprietor thereof on 19th June 1975; there was an error on the size of the suit property on the initial title when the register thereto was opened; the error was subsequently discovered, and on 12th July 1984, the Director of Survey recomputed the suit property’s acreage within its existing boundaries, which resulted in the acreage of 26,993 Ha being indicated on the title; and as such, the acreage of the suit property has never changed since the boundaries as originally demarcated have never been altered; and 8.Besides, the 2nd respondent asserts that, the proposed joinder of the proposed interested parties is a ruse meant to challenge the various decisions by the superior courts below on the suit property; this Court lacks jurisdiction to determine the contention on ownership of the suit property in the first instance; in any event, the ELC (Gacheru, J) by a ruling dated 18th September 2025 in Narok ELC No. 31 of 2018 (Formerly Kajiado ELC No. 430 of 2017) struck out the said suit, which the 1st applicant had alleged was pending and would be affected by the determination of the appeal before this Court; the suit was struck out on the ground that the it was res judicata; it follows that the applicants have neither demonstrated their interest in the suit property nor the prejudice they stand to suffer if they are not joined to the appeal; and mischief should be read into why the applicants did not seek joinder in the trial court or before the Court of Appeal; and 9.Further noting that by way of rejoinder the applicants through a further affidavit also sworn by John Kamanga on 12th June 2025 as well as further submissions of even date maintain that both John Kamanga and Isaac Kiresian have the requisite locus to institute the Motion on behalf of the Group Ranches. That, the interests of a particular community over ancestral land can be pursued either collectively or individually by virtue of the 2010 Constitution; nevertheless, both John Kamanga and Isaac Kiresian are members of the Group Ranches and they obtained the necessary consent of the other members to institute the Motion; and 10.Cognisant that the Attorney General who is the appellant/1st respondent opted not to file a response and remain neutral as far as this Motion is concerned; and 11.Upon deliberations on the Motion and the rival arguments, we now opine as follows:i.It is apposite to begin with consideration of the applicants’ locus standi to institute the current Motion as it goes to this Court’s jurisdiction to entertain the same. We understand the 2nd respondent’s contention on this issue to be two pronged. First, it argues that the 1st applicant lacks the requisite locus to file the Motion on behalf of the Group Ranches which are body corporates and therefore, capable of bringing the Motion in their own corporate names. Second, the 1st applicant likewise, lacks the capacity to file the Motion on behalf of the 2nd applicant.ii.It is common ground that John Kamanga (John) and Isaac Kiresian (Isaac) are not only members of Ol Kiramatian Group Ranch and Shompole Group Ranch respectively but they are also listed as some of the group representatives in the certificate of incorporation of the respective ranches under Section 7 of the Land (Group Representative) Act (Repealed). What is more, under Section 8 of the Land (Group Representative) Act, the group representatives were conferred with the power to sue and be sued in their corporate name. As far as the 2nd respondent is concerned the Group Ranches should have filed the Motion seeking joinder as interested parties in their respective corporate names. In this regard, the 2nd respondent relies in this Court’s decision in Getao v Mokare & 4 others [2021] KESC 36 (KLR) (Getao Case) to support this line of argument.iii.The question of John and Isaac’s capacity to institute proceedings on behalf of the Group Ranches was the subject of Narok ELC No. 31 of 2018 wherein the 2nd respondent raised a similar objection. In that matter, John and Isaac commenced the suit therein in their own names. The court (Gacheru, J) considered the aforementioned provisions of the Land (Group Representative) Act and by a ruling dated 18th September 2025 found that they lacked the requisite locus standi. In doing so, the court held that firstly, courts have on numerous occasions held that it is only the Group Ranch through its representatives, that could sue on behalf of its members concerning land belonging to the Group Ranch. In other words, that a single representative of a Group Ranch cannot sue alone on behalf of Group Ranch by dint of the Land (Group Representatives) Act. Further, that there was no evidence of the other representatives of the Group Ranches granting authority to John and Isaac to file the suit. Secondly, that, a suit filed and or brought by the group’s representatives must be in its corporate name.iv.It would appear that the 1st applicant took into account the aforementioned findings by the ELC in filing the current Motion. For starters, while the Motion is in the names of John and Isaac, they clearly set out that they have brought the same on their own behalf and on behalf of their respective group ranches. It is instructive to note that this time around they have annexed to the Motion an Authority to Act on behalf of the membership of the said Group Ranches which is duly signed by the membership thereof. To that extent, we find that John and Isaac are clothed with the requisite locus standi to file the Motion on their own behalf as well as the Group Ranches. Further, the Getao Case is distinguishable to the circumstances of this Motion. This is because in Getao Case, the issue was whether the appellant therein could lay claim to a particular portion of land to the exclusion of any other member of the group ranch prior to subdivision and subsequent allocation of portions thereof to individual members.v.Moving to the 1st applicant’s locus to file the Motion on behalf of the 2nd applicant, Kajiado County Government, it is submitted that the County Government is a necessary party due to its mandate to protect the interests of communities over unregistered community land. While we appreciate the 2nd applicant’s mandate, it not lost to this Court that it is a body corporate by virtue of Section 6(1) of the County Governments Act, Cap 265 and distinct from the 1st applicant. Equally, the 1st applicant through its further affidavit deposed that they never claimed to be acting on behalf of the 2nd applicant. However, it is clear that the Motion was filed by the 1st applicant’s advocates. Therefore, on what basis is the 2nd applicant’s joinder as an interested premised on? The answer is simply nothing and as such, we decline to join the 2nd applicant to the appeal before this Court.vi.The guiding principles that this Court ought to take into account when faced with an application for joinder of an interested party are well settled. See Rule 24 of the Supreme Court Rules and Muruatetu. They include:“… Enjoinment is not as of right, but is 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.”vii.Applying the foregoing principles to the 1st applicant’s Motion to be joined in the appeal before this Court, we note that its interest therein is anchored on its claim of ownership to a portion of the suit property, which is subject of Narok ELC No. 31 of 2018. Putting it differently, the 1st applicant argues that the determination of the appeal herein will affect its claim of ownership of the suit property. To begin with it is important to set out pertinent facts so at to put the Motion in context.viii.The 2nd respondent filed a number of suits against the group ranches herein premised on trespass. The first in time was at the Resident Magistrate’s Court at Narok, Civil Case No. 15 of 1991, wherein on it obtained a permanent injunction restraining the Shompole Group Ranch from continuing any further trespass on the suit property. Subsequently, the 2nd respondent filed Kericho HCCC No. 65 & 66 of 2009 (consolidated) against both Group Ranches and on 2nd December 2009 obtained eviction orders against them from the suit property with the supervision of the Provincial Administration as well as nominal damages of Kshs. 5,000,000.ix.Instigated by the execution proceedings of the judgment in Kericho HCCC No. 65 & 66 of 2009, the 1st applicant filed a fresh suit in Machakos being, ELC No. 171 of 2014, seeking stay of execution of the said judgment and set out its claim to the suit property. The suit was initially transferred to Kajiado as Kajiado ELC No. 430 of 2017, and subsequently to Narok as Narok ELC No. 31 of 2018. It is this case that is the basis of the 1st applicant’s Motion for joinder in the appeal before us.x.By a ruling dated 18th September 2025, ELC (Gacheru, J) struck out Narok ELC No. 31 of 2018 on the ground, amongst others, that the issue of the suit property has been a subject of litigation since 1974, and several decisions have been made related to it. Beginning with the decision dated 10th January 1974 by the Land Adjudication Officer dismissing the objections raised by the Group Ranches over the suit property to the aforementioned suits. As it stands, with Narok ELC No. 31 of 2018 having been struck out, we concur with the 2nd respondent that there is nothing to substantiate the stake the 1st applicant has in the appeal before us. More so since, in its Motion, the said applicant anchored its interest on its claim of ownership to the suit property as set out in the struck-out suit. Accordingly, we find the Motion lacking in merit.xi.On the issue of costs of the Motion, although the general rule is that costs should follow the event, we are mindful of the circumstances herein where the applicants are pursuing not only their interests but of members of the Group Ranches. Accordingly, we do not wish to perpetually set these parties against each other and are persuaded to follow the principles enunciated in Rai & 3 Others v Rai & Others [2018] (KLR) and order each party to bear their own costs of this Motion. 12.Consequently, and for the reasons for the reasons afore-stated, we make the following Orders:a.The Motion dated 16th April 2025 and filed on 29th April 2025 is hereby dismissed.b.Each party shall bear their own costs of this MotionOrders accordingly. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 15TH DAY OF MAY, 2026.…………………………………………………………M. K. KOOMECHIEF JUSTICE & PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT…………………………………………P.M MWILU DEPUTY CHIEF JUSTICE & VICE PRESIDENT OF THE SUPREME COURT…………………………………………S. C. WANJALAJUSTICE OF THE SUPREME…………………………………………NJOKI NDUNGUJUSTICE OF THE SUPREME…………………………………………I. LENAOLAJUSTICE OF THE SUPREME……………………………………………W. OUKOJUSTICE OF THE SUPREMEI certify that this is a true copy of the originalREGISTRARSUPREME COURT OF KENYA