https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4105

Enforce Ltd v Muntet & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E008 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4105 (KLR) (3 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4105 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Narok Environment and Land Case E008 of 2023 LN Gacheru, J July 3, 2026 Between Enforce Limited Plaintiff and Taatai Ole Muntet 1st Defendant The Land Registrar Narok 2nd Defendant and Nemuta Ene Muntet 1st Applicant Kinyita Muntet 2nd Applicant Ruling 1.The matter coming up for determination is the 1st and 2nd Applicant/Interested Parties’ (hereinafter referred to as “the Applicants”) Chamber Summons Application dated 4th May 2026, which application is brought under Order 1 Rules 3, 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 12 of the Matrimonial Property Act and all other enabling provisions of law, where the Applicants have sought inter alia the following orders: 1.That Nemuta Ene Muntet and Kinyikita Muntet being interested parties herein be allowed to join these proceedings. 2.That the costs of this application be provided for. 2.The instant application is supported by the annexed Supporting Affidavit sworn by Nemuta Ene Muntet, the 1st Applicant herein, on even date, and is based on the following grounds as set out on the face of the application: 3.The 1st Applicant averred that both Applicants are wives to the 2nd Respondent; that the present suit is in respect to CIS-MARA/OLDONYO-RASHA/527 (hereinafter referred to as “the Suit Property”) which land constitutes family property; and that their families are utilizing the suit property. 4.Further, that the 2nd Respondent sold the suit property to the 1st Respondent; that she did not give spousal consent authorizing the sale; and that she was never consulted or informed about the said sale. 5.Further, she averred that the Applicants stand to suffer prejudice and irreparable loss if the matter were to proceed without their participation; that there is another suit, Narok ELC No. E004 of 2024, involving herself as the Plaintiff against the 1st and 2nd Respondents herein; and that the said suit involves similar issues. 6.She also averred that it is in the interest of justice that the Applicants be joined in the proceedings as interested parties so as to protect their interests and enable this court to fully and effectively determine all the questions herein. 7.Further, that the Respondents herein do not stand to suffer any prejudice if they Applicants are joined in this suit as interested parties. 8.The 1 Respondent /Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff”) filed its Grounds of Opposition dated 10th May 2026 in opposition to the instant Application where it averred as follows: 9.The Plaintiff/1st Respondent averred that the instant application is incompetent, misconceived, bad in law and an abuse of the Court’s process. That the Interested Parties have already instituted separate proceedings against the Plaintiff/ 1st Respondent in Narok ELCC E004 of 2024; Nemunta Ene Muntet & Another vs Taatai Ole Muntet & Another involving substantially the same issues; that the instant application offends Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act; and allowing the joinder of the Interested Parties in the present suit will cause duplicity of proceedings as there is already another suit pending before this Court. 10.The Plaintiff/ 1st Respondent further averred that the suit has been heard partially, and that the Plaintiff had since closed its case; that the intended joinder will cause unnecessary delay and disrupt the progression of the proceedings; and that the application lacks merit and that the same ought to be dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent. 11.In support of its Grounds of Opposition and in opposition to the instant Application, the 1st Respondent filed its written submissions dated 19th May 2026, and submitted as follows: 12.That the Application lacked merit as the Intended Interested Parties had already instituted Narok ELCC No. E004 of 2024; Nemuta Ene Muntet & Another v Taatai Ole Muntet & Another, a separate suit before the same Court involving substantially the same parties, and the same subject matter; and that the Applicants had an appropriate forum through which to ventilate their grievances and that their intended joinder in the present proceedings was unnecessary. 13.The Plaintiff/1st Respondent further submitted that allowing the Application would occasion multiplicity of proceedings, and offend the doctrine of sub judice under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act. Reliance was placed on John Kiprotich Saina v Barnaba Kipkemboi Saina [2022] KEELC 1719 (KLR), wherein the Court, while adopting the reasoning in Thiba Min Hydro Ltd v Josephat Karu Ndwiga, held that the substance of the dispute, rather than the manner in which a suit is framed, determines whether the doctrine of sub judice applies. It was submitted that where the parties, issues and reliefs sought are substantially the same, the later suit ought not to proceed concurrently. 14.The 1st Respondent also submitted that the present matter was already part - heard and as a Plaintiff, it had closed its case; and that permitting the Applicants to join the proceedings at such an advanced stage would occasion unnecessary delay, prejudice the Plaintiff and disrupt the orderly progression of the trial. 15.It was further submitted that the Applicants had failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances warranting their joinder at that late stage of the proceedings; and that the intended joinder served no useful purpose other than duplicating proceedings already pending before the Court. 16.Consequently, the Plaintiff/1st Respondent urged the Court to find that the instant Application dated 4th May 2026, is devoid of merit, constitutes an abuse of the court process, and should be dismissed with costs to the 1st Respondent. 17.Having carefully considered the instant Chamber Summons Application dated 4th May 2026, the Supporting Affidavit, the Grounds of Opposition, the written submissions filed by the parties, and the applicable law, the sole issue falling for determination is whether the Applicants have met the threshold for joinder as Interested Parties in these proceedings. 18.The principles governing joinder of parties are now well settled. Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules grants the Court wide discretion, at any stage of the proceedings, to add any person whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. 19.In Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu & 5 Others [2015] eKLR, the Supreme Court held that an intended interested party must demonstrate a proximate and identifiable stake in the proceedings, the prejudice likely to be suffered if excluded, and the specific submissions it intends to advance which would not otherwise be presented before the Court. 20.The Applicants contend that they are spouses of the 2nd Respondent, and that the suit property constitutes matrimonial property in which they claim beneficial interests; and that the impugned sale of the suit property was undertaken without their knowledge or spousal consent. These are not remote or peripheral interests. Rather, they are direct proprietary claims touching on the very subject matter of the suit. 21.The Plaintiff/ 1st Respondent opposes the Application principally on the ground that the Applicants have already instituted Narok ELCC No. E004 of 2024, Nemuta Ene Muntet & Another v Taatai Ole Muntet & Another, involving substantially similar issues, and that permitting their joinder would offend the doctrine of sub judice and occasion multiplicity of proceedings. 22.While this Court appreciates the concern regarding parallel litigation, that fact alone does not automatically disentitle a party from being joined in proceedings where its proprietary interests are directly implicated. 23.The question before this Court is not whether the other suit ought to proceed, but whether the Applicants’ presence is necessary for the complete and effectual determination of the issues raised in the present suit. 24.It is not disputed that the outcome of this suit is likely to directly affect the Applicants’ alleged interests in the suit property. Should the Court determine the validity of the impugned transaction in their absence, the Applicants may be left bound by findings made without having been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Such an outcome would offend the cardinal principles of natural justice, particularly the right to a fair hearing guaranteed under Article 50(1) of the Constitution. 25.The Plaintiff/ 1st Respondent also argued that the suit is already part - heard and that it has closed its case. While that is indeed a relevant consideration, Order 1 Rule 10(2) expressly empowers the Court to order joinder “at any stage of the proceedings”. The mere fact that proceedings have advanced cannot, without more, bar joinder where the ends of justice so require. Any prejudice that may be occasioned to the Plaintiff can adequately be addressed through appropriate directions by the Court, including permitting limited participation by the Applicants and making such consequential orders as may be necessary for the expeditious disposal of the suit. 26.The Court is further guided by the overriding objective under Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, which requires disputes to be determined in a just, proportionate and efficient manner. Considering that the Applicants’ claim proprietary rights over the very property that forms the subject matter of these proceedings, their participation will enable the Court to comprehensively determine all the issues in controversy and minimize the risk of conflicting decisions concerning the same property. 27.In the circumstances, the court is satisfied that the Applicants have demonstrated a sufficient legal interest in the suit property, have established the prejudice they stand to suffer if excluded from these proceedings, and have met the legal threshold for joinder as Interested Parties. 28.Consequently, the Chamber Summons Application dated 4th May 2026 is hereby allowed on the following terms:a.Nemuta Ene Muntet and Kinyikita Muntet, the Applicants herein, are hereby joined in these proceedings as the 1st and 2nd Interested Parties respectively.b.The Interested Parties shall file and serve their pleadings, witness statements and any documents they intend to rely upon within 14 days from the date hereof.c.The Respondents shall be at liberty to file any consequential responses, if necessary, within 14 days of service.d.The Court shall thereafter issue further directions on the hearing of the matter with a view to ensuring its expeditious disposal.e.Costs of the Application shall be in the cause.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 3RD DAY OF JULY 2026.L. GACHERUJUDGE.Delivered online in the presence of:Elijah Meyoki – Court AssistantMs Ogolla for the Plaintiff/1st Respondent.Mr Oyugi for the 2nd Defendant/ 2nd RespondentMr Nchoko for the Intended Interested Parties/ ApplicantsL. GACHERUJUDGE.