https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5343

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA AT NYERI** **ELC NO. 673 OF 2014** **JOSEPH GITHINGA ITHAGI........................................................PLAINTIFF** **VERSUS** **LAWRENCE GITHINJI IRUNGU.......................................1ST DEFENDANT** **STEPHEN KIURI MWANGI...............................................2ND DEFENDANT** **AND** **BONIFACE GICHOHI KIBUCHI (as the legal representative of the estate of NYANDEGWA GICHOHI(DECEASED)) .................APPLICANT** **RULING** 1. The Applicant herein filed an application under Notice of Motion dated 30th October 2025, seeking the following orders: 2. **Spent.** 3. **That, pending the hearing and determination of this application, the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order of inhibition, restraining and prohibiting any dealings, transfers, or registrations concerning Land Parcel LR.Githi/Igana/328, until further orders of the Court.** 4. **That this Honourable Court be pleased to review, vary, or set aside its final decree and orders vesting Land Parcel No. Githi/Igana/328 in the name of Joseph Githinga Ithagi, and to reinstate the original registration in the name of the deceased, Wandegwa Gichohi.** 5. **It is hereby ordered that this Honourable Court finds and declares that the transfer and vesting of title in Joseph Githinga Ithagi were obtained through irregular and fraudulent means by individuals who lacked the proper standing and any familial relationship to the deceased. Consequently, all such entries shall be nullified immediately.** 6. **That this Honourable Court do find and declare that the purported substitution of the deceased plaintiff, Wandegwa Gichohi, with one Johnson Macharia Mwaniki, without a grant of letters of administration and without any legal or blood relationship to the deceased, and the subsequent substitution of his son, Joseph Githanga Ithagi, were irregular, unlawful and void, and that all actions and decrees issued in their favour were made without due process and without lawful representation of the estate of the deceased plaintiff.** 7. **That the Applicant, Boniface Gichohi Kibuchi, being the lawful grandson and duly appointed personal representative of the deceased plaintiff, Wandegwa Gichohi, be substituted as the proper plaintiff in this suit in place of the deceased, and that the record be amended accordingly.** 8. **That the costs of the application be provided for.** 9. The application is supported by the grounds of the Applicant, who deposed that he is the duly appointed administrator ad litem of the estate of Wandegwa Gichohi (Deceased), his grandmother, the mother of his mother, Betha Wanjiru Kibuchi (also Deceased), his grandmother’s only child. 10. The Applicant deposed that the deceased Wandegwa Gichohi instituted this suit on or about 1978, seeking the recovery of her parcel, LR No. Githi/Igana/328, which had been fraudulently transferred from her name by the original defendant, Irungu Gaitho (now deceased). 11. The Applicant’s case is that, following the name of his aforementioned grandmother, the conduct of this suit was irregularly taken over by one Johnson Macharia Mwaniki, and later by his son, the current Plaintiff, Joseph Githanga Ithagi, without any lawful authority to represent her estate and without any involvement, knowledge or authority from their family. 12. That in September 2025, while conducting an official search at the Nyeri Land Registry for the purpose of filing a succession cause, the Applicant deposed that he discovered for the first time that the suit parcel had been transferred to the named plaintiff herein pursuant to a judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on 20th September 2024. 13. Upon inquiry and perusal of the court record, the Applicant discovered that Johnson Macharia Mwaniki, by application dated 1st October 1988, sought to be substituted as the Plaintiff, falsely claiming to be a son of the deceased Plaintiff, despite never having obtained any grant of letters of administration ad litem to the deceased’s estate. His son, the current Plaintiff, only obtained a grant to his own father’s estate. 14. As advised by his Advocate on record, both substitutions were therefore irregular, unlawful and void, having been made by persons without any familial relationship to the deceased and without legal capacity to represent her estate. 15. It is the Applicant’s case that this Court’s judgment was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of material facts, with the deceased’s true heirs being completely excluded from the proceedings. **The Plaintiff/Respondent’s replying affidavit** 1. The Plaintiff/Respondent herein swore a replying affidavit in response to the application on the 14th of November 2025. 2. The Plaintiff contends that the Applicant is seeking to intervene in this suit irregularly, belatedly and as a stranger to the proceedings, in which he did not participate. 3. That the Plaintiff took up this suit when it had abated and successfully prosecuted it until he recovered the land, and the Applicant was aware of this but did not show any interest in it. 4. That the Plaintiff’s father had applied to be substituted for Wandegwa Gichohi (Deceased), because she had written a will leaving everything to him. That even the Applicant’s mother renounced her interest in her mother’s estate in favour of the Plaintiff’s father. 5. That the Court substituted him because it believed he was the proper person to be so appointed, and that the Plaintiff obtained a grant of letters of administration ad litem to enable him to continue with the case, which was in order. That he could not have applied for a grant in respect of the original plaintiff, who had already been substituted by his father. 6. The Plaintiff contends that this suit has been in court for over 40 years, so the Applicant cannot convince anyone that he was unaware of it, even though it involved his grandmother’s land. The Plaintiff further contends that the court is now functus officio, having delivered the judgment. 7. The Court has considered the respective written submissions filed. **Analysis and determination** 1. The Applicant hereby requests various orders, primarily seeking an order to review, vary, or set aside the final decree vesting Land Parcel No. Githi/Igana/328 in the name of Joseph Githinga Ithagi, and to reinstate the original registration in the name of the deceased, Wandegwa Gichohi. 2. Nevertheless, I must observe that the Applicant, who has presented himself as an interested party, has not been formally joined as a party to the proceedings herein and, consequently, lacks the locus standi to address the court and seek orders in this matter. 3. In the case of Alfred Njau and Others v. City Council of Nairobi (1982) KAR 229, the Court further held that- ***“the term Locus Standi means a right to appear in Court and conversely to say that a person has no Locus Standi means that he has no right to appear or be heard in such and such proceedings.”*** 1. The Supreme Court, in the case of **Senate of the Republic of Kenya & 3 others v Speaker of the National Assembly of the Republic of Kenya & 10 others; Fund Board (Interested Party) (Petition 19(E027) of 2021) [2022] KESC 20 (KLR) (19 May 2022) (Ruling)**, on joinder and locus standi determined that: ***“Having considered the said prayer, we find that a party yet to be enjoined in a matter such as the present appeal, lacks the capacity to pray for interlocutory orders in it, and that the prayer is therefore disallowed.”*** 1. Similarly, the Court of Appeal, in the case of **Kihanya & 4 others v Gichuri & another (Civil Appeal 15 of 2019) [2024] KECA 852 (KLR),** held on the same issue that: ***“Locus standi is so cardinal in civil proceedings. This is because without locus standi, a party lacks the right to institute and/or maintain the suit even where a valid cause of action subsists. It can be equated to a court acting without jurisdiction.”*** 1. Thus, the Applicant has no locus standi to raise any issue in this matter, having not applied to be joined in these proceedings. 2. Consequently, the current application is struck out with costs. **Dated, signed, and delivered virtually at Nyeri on this 19th day of August 2026.** **E. K. MAKORI** **JUDGE** **In the Presence of:** **Mr. Irungu for the Applicant** **Ms.Maina for the Plaintiff/Respondent** **Ms. Kimunya for the Defendants/Respondents**