https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4691

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI** **ELCLC NO. E528 OF 2024** **GERALD CHEGE GITAU………………….........................……...........…1ST PLAINTIFF** **SIMON WAINAINA KARIUKI………………................................…….2ND PLAINTIFF** **ELIJAH NYAKUNDI ANYONA.…………...........................….......…...3RD PLAINTIFF** **-VERSUS-** **GATUNDU AND MANG’U FARM COMPANY LIMITED…….......…1ST DEFENDANT** **NAIROBI CITY COUNTY GOVERNMENT...…..............................2ND DEFENDANT** **THE NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION.…....................................3RD DEFENDANT** **THE CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR…………..................................….4TH DEFENDANT** **DIRECTOR OF SURVEY KENYA…………......................................5TH DEFENDANT** **ETHICS AND ANTI CORRUPTION COMMISSION…………......….6TH DEFENDANT** **-AND-** **ETHAN NGOTHO KURIA…......................…..1ST INTENDED INTERESTED PARTY** **ANDREW GICHUKI MUGO.........................2ND INTENDED INTERESTED PARTY** **ELIUD WAITHAKA NGAHU........................3RD INTENDED INTERESTED PARTY** **WILSON KURIA MAINA……........................4TH INTENDED INTERESTED PARTY** **SIDI WANJIRU……………..........................…5TH INTENDED INTERESTED PARTY** **STEPHEN MAINA WAMUKONYA…............6TH INTENDED INTERESTED PARTY** **BEATRICE MUMBI MWAURA.....................7TH INTENDED INTERESTED PARTY** **MARGARETNDABUWA SAKA....................8TH INTENDED INTERESTED PARTY** **JOHN GITHU KAMOMOE…....................….9TH INTENDED INTERESTED PARTY** **RULING** 1. Before this court for determination is the notice of motion dated 21st February, 2025 filed by the intended interested parties/applicants and it is expressed to be brought under **Order 1 Rule 10** and **Order 51 Rule 1** of the **Civil Procedure Rules** and **Sections 1A, 1B** and **3A** of the **Civil Procedure Act** seeking the following orders:- 2. ***That the intended interested parties be joined to the suit as interested parties.*** 3. ***That this honourable court do make any such further and/or other orders and issue any other relief it may deem just to grant in the interest of justice.*** 4. ***That the costs of this application be provided for.*** 5. The application is premised on the grounds on its face. It is further supported by the affidavit of the 1st intended interested party/applicant sworn on even date on his behalf and on behalf of the other intended interested parties/applicants. He deposed that they have a stake in the property known as L.R. No. 14847 (I.R 51169) as *bonafide* purchasers for value after the subdivision of the suit property and that they were issued with title deeds as a result of the subdivisions, with copies of the certificates of lease annexed to his affidavit. 6. The 1st intended interested party/applicant deposed that they will be affected by any orders issued in this suit and they pray that it is in the interest of justice that they be joined to this suit. 7. The plaintiffs filed grounds of opposition dated 13th March, 2025 challenging the application on the following grounds:- 8. ***That the applicants herein do not have a clearly identifiable and proximate stake in the instant suit that would warrant them being joined as interested parties.*** 9. ***That the applicants’ case and/or submissions merely amount to replication of the case and submissions already set by other parties before this court.*** 10. ***That the application is vexatious, an abuse of the court process and is solely meant to derail, frustrate and ultimately defeat the expeditious disposition of the matter through inundating this honourable court with numerous frivolous applications.*** 11. The 2nd defendant filed grounds of opposition dated 27th March 2025, opposing the instant application on the following grounds:- 12. ***That the notice of motion dated 21st February, 2025 as drawn and taken out is misconceived, bad in law, is devoid of merit and amounts to an abuse of the process of this honourable court.*** 13. ***That the intended interested parties/ applicants are not proper and necessary parties to the suit to warrant joinder.*** 14. ***That the intended interested parties/ applicants presence is not necessary to enable the court effectively and completely adjudicate all the questions involved in this suit.*** 15. ***That the application is scandalous and full of falsehoods and the intended interested parties/ applicants intended action is incompatible with the plaintiff’s pleaded case.*** 16. ***That prima facie, the suit property was declared as government land in Nairobi Civil Appeal no. 8 of 2014: Ndorongo Gatheru and Gatundu and Mangu Farm Company Limited v Norman Kariuki and 30 others.*** 17. ***That the application is frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the process of this honourable court and ought to be dismissed.*** 18. The 1st defendant through its Director, Dominic Ngare filed its replying affidavit sworn on 28th March, 2025 in support of the instant application. The 1st defendant deposed that it is the current registered owner of L.R. No. 14847 measuring 70.61 Ha through direct grant from the government and holds a lease of 99 years starting from the 1st of July 1989, which title has never been cancelled nor challenged. 19. That upon acquisition of the suit land by the 1st defendant, the same was legally subdivided and the resultant subdivisions were purchased by third parties in compliance with legal regulations, with the proposed interested parties being among the beneficiaries of the said sub-divisions. It is therefore apparent that any orders issued by this court relating to the suit property will directly affect the proprietary interests of the intended interested parties/applicants and thus they qualify as interested parties. 20. Brian A. Ikol, the director of legal affairs & alternative dispute resolution directorate of the 3rd defendant, filed the replying affidavit sworn on 26th March, 2025 in response and opposition to the instant application. He deposed that the application contains mischief as the suit land is public land, in accordance with **Article 62(1)** of the **Constitution** of Kenya. Further, that the court of appeal on 30th June, 2017 in Nairobi Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2014 pronounced itself with respect to the suit property, holding that pursuant to the records held at the lands registry, the entire parcel of land known as LR. No. 8569/5 belongs to the Government of Kenya. 21. As such, the 3rd defendant contends that any stake that the intended interested parties/applicants have in the suit property is legally untenable and misconceived. That in any event, such joinder would be futile and an exercise in vanity. 22. The application was canvassed through written submissions. The intended interested parties/applicants filed their written submissions dated 15th January, 2026. The plaintiffs filed their written submissions dated 24th February, 2026. By the time of writing this ruling, the 1st and 3rd defendants had not filed their written submissions. Be that as it may, I have considered the application, the replies thereof and the written submissions filed by the respective parties. The issue for determination is *whether the intended interested parties/applicants are necessary parties in this suit.* 23. The intended interested parties/applicants seek to be joined in this suit as interested parties, on grounds that they bought subdivisions of the suit property herein, known as L.R. 14847 (I.R 51169), thus they have a stake in the proceedings and will be affected by any orders issued. 24. The rules governing joinder of a party are found in **Order 1** of the **Civil Procedure Rules.** **Order 1(10)** 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.”*** 1. The black’s law dictionary 8th Edition, defines a “Interested Party”as:- ***“a party who has a recognizable stake (and therefore standing) in a matter.”*** 1. Both the intended interested parties/applicants and the plaintiff relied on the holding in the case of **Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemo & 5 others (Petition 12 of 2013) [2014] KESC 32 (KLR)** in which the learned judges of the Supreme Court held that:- ***“An interested party was one who had a stake in the proceedings, though they were not initially a party to the cause. Such a person felt that their interest would not be well articulated unless they personally appeared in the proceedings, and championed their cause.”*** 1. Additionally, the Supreme Court in the case of **Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 others [2014] eKLR** cited with approval the following case, which broke down the elements necessary for joinder of a party is as follows:- ***“In the case of Meme v. Republic,[2004] 1 EA 124, the High Court observed that a party could be enjoined in a matter for the reasons that:-*** ***“(i) Joinder of a person because his presence will result in the complete settlement of all the questions involved in the proceedings;*** ***(ii) joinder to provide protection for the rights of a party who would otherwise be adversely affected in law;*** ***(iii) joinder to prevent a likely course of proliferated litigation.”*** ***We ask ourselves the following questions:*** 1. ***what is the intended interested party’s stake and relevance in the proceedings? and*** ***(b) will the intended interested party suffer any prejudice if denied joinder?”*** 1. The intended interested parties/applicants claim that they are bonafide purchasers for value for the resultant subdivisions of the suit property, which certificate of leases they hold in their names. On the other hand, the plaintiffs opposed the instant application on grounds that the intended interested parties/applicants have not demonstrated a clear and identifiable stake in these proceedings to this court, that the said certificates of lease were issued in relation to parcels excised from the suit property and that the location of the purported parcels of land as per their certificates of lease is unknown and impossible to ascertain. The 2nd defendant also opposed the instant application on grounds that the intended interested parties/applicants have not met the threshold of grant of orders of joinder. 2. I do note from the annexures, the intended interested parties/applicants have not produced any proof that the certificates of lease are resultant from the suit property herein, L.R. 14847, but this fact was confirmed by the 1st defendant in their replying affidavit. It is evident that any orders issued herein will significantly affect the intended interested parties/applicant who claim proprietary interest in the suit property. 3. It is the finding of this court that the intended interested parties/applicants have an identifiable stake in these proceedings. The notice of motion dated 21st February, 2025 is hereby allowed with no order as to costs. It is so ordered. **DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED VIRTUALLY** **THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY, 2026.** **HON. MBOGO C.G.** **JUDGE** **22/07/2026.** ***In the presence of:*** *Mr. Benson Agunga - Court assistant* *Mr. Mwenda for the Plaintiffs/Respondents* *Ms. Komer for the 1st Defendant/Respondent* *Ms. Waweru holding brief for Mrs. Maina for the 2nd Defendant/Respondent* *Ms. Njaggah holding brief for Ms. Gardale for the 3rd Defendant/Respondent* *Mr. Ng’etich holding brief or Mwaniki for the Interested Parties/Applicants*