https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3094

Board of Trustees, Good News Church of Africa v Board of Management, Eldoret Secondary School & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 18 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 3094 (KLR) (21 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3094 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret Environment and Land Case 18 of 2019 CK Yano, J May 21, 2026 Between Board of Trustees, Good News Church of Africa Plaintiff and Board of Management, Eldoret Secondary School 1st Defendant Board of Management Brick, House Technical Training Institute 2nd Defendant and Isaac Ogutu Ogutu Intended Defendant Ruling 1.The Intended 3rd Defendant/Applicant filed a Notice of Motion Application dated 15th December, 2025 seeking the following orders: - i. Spent. ii. That the Applicant be joined as a 3rd Defendant in these proceedings. iii. That this suit be consolidated with and/or heard together with ELDORET ELC CASE NO. E112 OF 2025 – Isaac Ogutu Ogutu vs Rev. Isaac Bett, Rev. Phillip Lagat, Board of Trustees Good News Church of Africa, Board of Management Eldoret Secondary School and the County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu County. iv. That costs of this application abide the outcome of the suit. 2.The application is premised on 12 grounds on the face thereof and on the applicant’s Supporting Affidavit jointly sworn on even date. 3.The applicant deponed that he is the lawful registered owner of the parcel of land known as Eldoret Municipality Block 11/20 (hereinafter referred to as the suit land), having acquired the same vide an Agreement for Sale dated 28.03.1995 and the land registered in his name on 15.05.1995. 4.It is his claim that the 2nd defendant is his tenant, while he remains the validly registered owner of the suit land. That his tenant, the 2nd defendant herein, was served with the present proceedings containing allegations that it had trespassed into the suit land, which allegedly belongs to the plaintiff herein. 5.The applicant deponed that he has maintained a peaceful occupation and use of the suit property since 1995 and he has currently leased a portion thereof measuring 5 Acres to the 2nd defendant, who is running an educational institution. 6.It is his contention that he stands to suffer irreparable loss and harm unless he is joined as a party in the present proceedings as there exists an imminent risk that the ownership dispute over the suit land may be determined without his participation whereas he holds a valid title in respect to the suit land. 7.He stated that he has since instituted the proceedings known as ELDORET ELC CASE NO. E112 OF 2025 – Isaac Ogutu Ogutu vs Rev. Isaac Bett, Rev. Phillip Lagat, Board of Trustees Good News Church of Africa, Board of Management Eldoret Secondary School and the County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu County; seeking the cancellation of the purported title document held by the plaintiff. He annexed the pleadings filed in the said suit. 8.It is therefore his assertion that the two suits/proceedings, touching on the ownership of the same parcel of land either be consolidated or heard together to avoid the possibility of the courts arriving at two conflicting outcomes. 9.Thus, it is averred that the said joinder in the present proceedings and consolidation of the two suits to be heard together will enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate and settle all the questions involved in the dispute hence the present application be allowed as prayed. 10.The application was opposed. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant filed their respective Replying Affidavits, diversely dated in response thereto. 11.The 1st defendant filed a Replying Affidavit dated 09.03.2026 and sworn by one Bharati S. Joshi, the Administrator Ad-litem of the estate of the late Nanalal Nagji Bhadla, who was the proprietor, legal and beneficial owner of Eldoret Secondary School and a Board member of the Eldoret Secondary School, the 1st defendant herein. 12.He dismissed the present application as being incompetent and lacks merit and thus ought to be struck out. 13.It is his claim that there is no claim against the applicant that would warrant his joinder to the present proceedings and the applicant is therefore not a necessary party for the just and effectual determination of the suit herein. 14.With regard to the prayer for consolidation, it was his claim that they have not been served with any pleadings in the said proceedings/suit known as ELDORET ELC E112 OF 2025 and the same cannot therefore be determined at this stage since there has been no issue of service. 15.In addition, and without prejudice to the foregoing; it is his claim that whereas the subject matter in both suits is similar, the issues to be determined by the court, the reliefs sought and the parties in the two suits are different hence making the same unsuitable for consolidation. He therefore urged the court to dismiss the present application with costs. 16.The plaintiff filed a Replying Affidavit dated 27.02.2026 and sworn by one Rev. Isaac Bett, the Chairman of the plaintiff herein. 17.It is his claim that the plaintiff is the sole registered owner of the suit land measuring approx. 2.428Ha and annexed a copy of the lease thereto in support of his averments. 18.He went on to explain that the suit land was first registered in the name of Gospel Furthering Fellowship Registered Trustee on 01.06.1959 and was later transferred to the plaintiff herein vide a Resolution of the Board of Trustees of Gospel Furthering Fellowship passed on 25.04.2014. 19.He therefore dismissed the allegations by the applicant that he is the lawful registered owner of the suit land as being false with the intention of falsely acquiring the suit land. He maintained that the alleged title document held by the applicant is fraudulent. 20.Further, it is deponed that during the period alleged by the applicant of his acquisition and subsequent registration on 15.05.1995, the 2nd defendant was already established and in business on the suit land with the consent of or from Gospel Furthering Fellowship Registered Trustees. 21.He thus averred that the orders for joinder sought are not tenable since the applicant has not demonstrated that he is a necessary and/or interested party in the proceedings herein. 22.With regard to the prayer for consolidation of the two suits sought, it is his assertion that the plaintiffs have no objection to the said prayer since it will not prejudice or cause injustice to any party. 23.He however added that since there is a third case touching on the subject matter herein being proceeding known as ELDRET ELCOS NO. 8 OF 2020, the same should also be consolidated with the two to avoid the risk of conflicting decisions made in respect to the same subject matter. 24.In conclusion, he urged the court to dismiss the present application with costs. 25.The present application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The intended 3rd defendant/Applicant filed his submissions dated 15.04.2026, the 1st defendant/respondent filed their submissions dated 19.03.2026 while the plaintiff/respondent filed their submissions dated 11.05.2026 together with authorities, which I have read and duly considered in arriving at my decision as hereunder. Analysis and Determination: 26.I have carefully considered the Application and the grounds therein, the Supporting Affidavit and the annexures thereto, the replying affidavits in response to the application as well as the rival submissions in totality. 27.It is therefore my considered view that the issues arising for determination are as follows: -i.Whether the applicant herein can be enjoined in the proceedings as a 3rd Defendant.ii.Whether the proceedings herein can be consolidated with the proceedings known as ELDORET ELC CASE NO. E112 OF 2025 between Isaac Ogutu Ogutu vs Rev. Isaac Bett, Rev. Phillip Lagat, Board of Trustees Good News Church of Africa, Board of Management Eldoret Secondary School and the County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu Countyiii.Who shall bear the costs of the present Application. 28.The above issues for determination having been duly identified, I will now proceed to discuss the same as hereunder. Whether the applicants herein can be enjoined in the proceedings as interested parties; 29.At the center of this application is the issue of joinder of the applicant into the suit and/or proceedings herein as a 3rd defendant. 30.It is the applicant’s claim that he is the lawful registered owner of the suit land herein having acquired the same vide an agreement for sale and the subsequent registration thereto made on 15.05.1995. He annexed a copy of certificate of lease in support of his averments. 31.That in exercise of his exclusive ownership rights over the suit land as the legal owner thereof, the applicant avers that he leased out a portion of the suit land measuring 5 Acres to the 2nd defendant, who is his tenant and therefore the claims of trespass made against the 2nd defendant are false. 32.The ownership claims made by the applicant was strongly opposed by the plaintiff and the 1st defendant who maintained that the plaintiff is the rightful and lawful registered owner of the suit property. They further stated that the applicant has not demonstrated that he is a necessary party in the present proceedings or that there is a direct cause of action against him. 33.Order 1 Rule 10(2) allows the joinder of a party to the proceedings before a court. The order provides as follows: -(2)The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added. (emphasis added) 34.From the above provision, it is clear that a party may be enjoined in a suit at any stage of the proceedings before judgment is pronounced provided that the presence of the said party is necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit conclusively. 35.In the case of Technomatic Limited T/A Promopack Company vs Kenya Wine Agencies Limited & Another (2014) eKLR, the court while dealing with the issue of joinder stated as follows: -“It is clear that the guiding principles when an intending party is to be joined are as follows: he must be a necessary party, he must be a proper party, in the case of a defendant, there must be a relief flowing from that defendant to the plaintiff, the ultimate order or decree cannot be enforced without his presence in the matter, his presence is necessary to enable the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.” 36.The question that therefore follows is whether the applicant has satisfactorily met the criteria/threshold for joinder as outlined in the decision above. 37.I have duly considered the rival claims by both the applicant and respondents. It is clear from the rival positions that both the plaintiff and the applicant have laid ownership claims over the suit land herein. 38.Further, it is the applicant’s claim that the basis of the 2nd defendant’s entry, occupation and use of the suit land is on the lease between them. The plaintiff on the other hand has accused the 2nd defendant of trespass and/or encroachment into its lawful parcel of land. 39.In view of the above, this court finds that the applicant herein is a necessary party in the present proceedings to enable the court determine all the issues and questions arising effectively and substantively. 40.Consequently, the prayer for joinder is merited and is hereby allowed. Whether the proceedings herein can be consolidated with the proceedings known as ELDORET ELC CASE NO. E112 OF 2025 between Isaac Ogutu Ogutu vs Rev. Isaac Bett, Rev. Phillip Lagat, Board of Trustees Good News Church of Africa, Board of Management Eldoret Secondary School and the County Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu County; 41.The second issue herein seeks to determine whether the present proceedings can be consolidated with the proceedings known as ELDORET ELC CASE NO. E112 OF 2025. 42.It is the applicant’s claim that both suits are in relation to the same subject matter and therefore to avoid the possibility of any conflicting outcomes, it is necessary for the same to be consolidated and/or heard together. 43.The plaintiff on their part did not object to the prayer for consolidation, save that the same should include a third case also touching on the suit land herein vide ELDORET ELCOS NO. 8 OF 2020. 44.The 1st defendant on their part, although they admitted that the subject matter in both suits is similar, it was their contention that the issues, parties and reliefs sought in both suits are not similar and the same should therefore not be consolidated. 45.The Supreme Court of Kenya in the case of Law Society of Kenya v The Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, Supreme Court of Kenya, Petition No. 14 of 2013 stated as follows on the issue of consolidation of suits: -“The essence of consolidation is to facilitate the efficient and expeditious disposal of disputes and to provide a framework for a fair and impartial dispensation of justice to the parties. Consolidation was never meant to confer any undue advantage upon the party that seeks it, nor was it intended to occasion any disadvantage towards the party that opposes it.” 46.I have carefully considered the rival claims herein in relation to the issue of consolidation. I have also critically looked at the pleadings in the proceedings known as ELDORET ELC CASE NO. E112 OF 2025 annexed to the supporting affidavit and I do note that both suits not only relate to the same subject matter and should therefore be consolidated to facilitate the expeditious disposal of the dispute between the parties herein. 47.The totality of the foregoing is that this court finds that the present application is merited, the applicant has sufficiently proved his claim to the required standard to warrant the grant of the orders sought. Who shall bear the costs of the present Application 48.The general rule is that costs shall follow the event in accordance with the proviso to section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, unless the court is satisfied otherwise. 49.However, in view of the circumstances of the present application, I will direct that costs of the application to be in the cause. 50.The upshot of the above is that the present application vide the Notice of Motion dated 15th December, 2025 is merited and is hereby allowed as prayed in terms of prayers (ii) and (iii). Costs of the present application to be in the cause. 51.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT ELDORET THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2026.HON. C. K. YANOJUDGERuling delivered in the presence of: -Mr. Yego for Plaintiff/Respondent.Ms. Odwa for 1st Defendant.Mr. Otinga for 2nd defendant.Court Assistant – Laban