https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3928

Dazzler Properties Ltd v Njuguna & 4 others (Land Case E088 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3928 (KLR) (29 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3928 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi Land Case E088 of 2025 CG Mbogo, J June 29, 2026 Between Dazzler Properties Limited Plaintiff and Irene Wamucii Njuguna 1st Defendant Lois Wambui Thuo 2nd Defendant Chief Land Registrar 3rd Defendant and The Co-operative Bank Of Kenya Limited 1st Interested Party Pafco Limited 2nd Interested Party Ruling 1.Before this court for determination is the notice of motion dated 26th March, 2025 filed by the 2nd defendant/applicant and it is expressed to be brought under Article 159 of the Constitution, Order 1 Rule 10 (2) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking the following orders:-1.That this honourable court be pleased to strike out the 2nd defendants from the suit for misjoinder.2.That this honourable court be pleased to grant any other orders as it may deem fit to further the ends of justice.3.The plaintiff to pay the costs of this application and the suit. 2.The application is premised on the grounds inter alia that the 2nd defendant/applicant does not claim any interest in the suit property. The application is supported by the affidavit of the 2nd defendant/applicant sworn on even date. She deposed that she has no interest in the suit property at all and is neither a director or s shareholder of the 2nd interested party herein. Further, that no specific reliefs have been sought against her in the application or in the suit. She deposed that she is not a necessary party to this suit and she prays for the court to have her struck out from the proceedings as a result of misjoinder. 3.The application was opposed by the replying affidavit of Peter Kiarie Muraya, the director of the plaintiff/respondent sworn on 11th June, 2025. He deposed that the 2nd defendant/applicant played an active role in the attempt to grab the suit property from the plaintiff/respondent. Further, that when they conducted a search on 30th September, 2024 the records of the 2nd interested party at the companies registry revealed that the names of Mr. Onwere and Mrs. Onwere had been removed from the register of companies as directors and shareholders of the 2nd interested party; and further, that the names of the 1st and 2nd defendants had been entered as the sole directors and shareholders, holding 75 and 25 ordinary shares, respectively. 4.The plaintiff/respondent deposed that the 1st defendant had invaded and occupied the suit property purportedly on the strength of the defendants’ ownership of the 2nd interested party. This was later rectified on 18th February, 2025 where Mr. and Mrs. Onwere were reinstated as the shareholders and directors of the 2nd interested party. 5.The plaintiff/respondent deposed that there are serious and weighty allegations against the 2nd defendant, as well as reliefs of a temporary and permanent injunctive nature against her and it is only fair and just that the 2nd defendant remains in the suit to afford her an opportunity to defend herself and aid in the determination of the dispute before the court. 6.The 2nd defendant/applicant filed a further affidavit in response thereto sworn on 13th June, 2025. She deposed that the allegation that she interfered with the shareholding of the 2nd interested party and obtained 25 per cent shares, if indeed is true, is a matter which belongs to another forum and is not within the jurisdiction of this court. She maintained that any injunctive reliefs sought in the application or final orders sought in the suit against her will amount to an academic exercise as they will be in vain as they will not be enforceable against her should the plaintiff/respondent succeed in the application and suit. 7.The application was canvassed through written submissions. The 2nd defendant/applicant filed written submissions dated 13th June, 2025. The plaintiff/respondent filed written submissions dated 26th June, 2025. I have considered the application, the replies thereof and the written submissions. The issue for determination is whether there is misjoinder of the 2nd defendant/ applicant in this suit. 8.The 2nd defendant/applicant contends that she has been wrongly joined to this suit and wishes that her name be struck out from the suit for misjoinder. She further insists that she is not a necessary party to this suit. Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that:-“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.” 9.Black's Law Dictionary 8th Edition defines a “necessary party” as“a party who, being closely connected to a lawsuit, should be included in the case if feasible, but whose absence will not require dismissal of proceedings.” 10.The plaintiff/respondent has raised several accusations against the 2nd defendant/applicant together with the 1st defendant. In my view and upon careful consideration, it is in the interest of justice that the 2nd defendant/applicant remains present in this suit to answer to the allegations levelled against her. It is immaterial at this stage whether the allegations are fit for determination by this court for the reason that the very act complained of which speaks to root of the title appears to have been seemingly committed by the 1st and 2nd defendants. If there are any orders to made, she may be affected and the outcome of her absence may be severe. 11.The Court of Appeal in the case of M’imwenda & another v Mire (Civil Appeal (Application) 3 of 2019) [2024] KECA 1257 (KLR) found that:-“This court in Mbaki & Others vs Macharia & Another [2005] 2 EA 206, stated as follows:-“The right to be heard is a valued right. It would offend all notions of justice if the rights of a party were to be prejudiced or affected without the party being afforded an opportunity to be heard.”By parity of reasoning, we find that as the applicant is a person who is likely to be affected by the outcome of the appeal, she therefore has a right to be heard as dictated by the rules of natural justice.” 12.Accordingly, this court finds that the 2nd defendant/applicant is a necessary party to this suit. The notice of motion dated 26th March, 2025 lacks merit, and it is dismissed. Costs to be in the cause.Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.HON. MBOGO C.G.JUDGE29/06/2026.In the presence of:Ms. Benson Agunga - Court assistantMs. Obura holding brief for Mr. Seko for the 2nd DefendantMr. Lang’at for the PlaintiffMs. Gichuhi for the 1st Interested Party