https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5155

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT NAIROBI** **ELC NO. 1337 OF 2016** **\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_** **KARIOBANGI SOUTH LAND OWNERS GROUP -1ST PETITIONER** **JAMES MBUGUA KIMIRI -2ND PETITIONER** **SABINA MANDERE -3RD PETITIONER** **JOSEPH JUMA OMENYA & 262 OTHERS -4TH PETITIONER** **BETWEEN** **NAIROBI CITY COUNTY -1ST RESPONDENT** **GOVERNOR NAIROBI CITY COUNCIL -2ND RESPONDENT** **CHIEF OFFICER LANDS -3RD RESPONDENT** **COUNTY SECRETARY NAIROBI CITY COUNTY -4TH RESPONDENT** **NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION -5TH RESPONDENT** **ATTORNEY GENERAL -6TH RESPONDENT** **AND** **KARIOBANGI SOUTH JUAKALI SOCIETY - 1ST INTERESTED PARTY** **CHARLES MBUGUA GATHURU - 2ND INTERESTED PARTY** **PAULINE WANJIRU MIGWI (Suing As** **Administrator of the Estate of** **JAMES GUANDARU KIBIRA - PROPOSED INTERESTED PARTY/APPLICANT** **RULING** **(In respect of the Proposed Interested Party’s application dated 23/2/2026)** 1. Before me for determination is the Proposed Interested Party’s application dated 23/2/2026. The application is said to be brought pursuant to Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and to Orders 1, Rules 10 and 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Applicant principally prays for the following orders. 2. An order be granted enjoining the interested party, **Pauline Wanjiru Migwi** pending hearing and determination of the suit and leave be granted for filing of relevant documents in regard to the suit herein. 3. Costs of this application be provided for. 4. The application is predicated on the fact that the applicant has been duly informed of the current litigation. After review, she has affirmed that the dispute among the parties also pertains to her deceased husband’s property, identified as LR No. 12062/746 Kariobangi South. The inclusion of the Applicant as a party is intended to assist the court in effectively and comprehensively adjudicating and resolving all issues involved in the case. She asserts that the deceased was the bona fide holder of the title to the property in question, a claim she intends to substantiate through its ancestral origin. 5. The application is further supported by the applicant’s affidavit of even date. The applicant avers that she is a co-administrator of the estate of the deceased, James Guandaru Kibira, who was the director of Mahutini Gardens Limited and the registered owner of LR No. 12062/746. She further avers that she recently became aware of the instant suit and, upon perusal, her advocate noted that the deceased’s property is among those in this suit. 6. She asserts that she is aware that the original lease is held by Equity Bank Limited, as evidenced by the entry in the lease document, and that invalidating the lease title without her participation would be contrary to the rules of natural justice. She therefore seeks joinder to file documents, enabling the court to make a just determination. 7. In his grounds of opposition dated 9/7/2026, the 1st Interested Party opposed the application, arguing that the case is already at an advanced stage, with the petitioner's case closed and a defence hearing scheduled. The claims are in rem and similar to the petitioner's, making joinder redundant and likely to cause unnecessary delays without adding judicial value. The application is speculative and should be dismissed with costs. 8. The Petitioners further oppose the application on the grounds set out in their opposition dated 9/6/2026. In summary, the Petitioners argue that the Applicant's prayer for joinder is frivolous, abusive, and strategically delayed, intended to obstruct the suit's near-conclusion. The Applicant fails to demonstrate a direct legal interest, new probative evidence, or sufficient cause, and has not met the threshold under Order 1 Rule 10(2). That allowing joinder would prejudice the Petitioners, undermine judicial efficiency, increase costs, and cause unnecessary delay, while the issues raised could be pursued in a separate suit. The application is therefore meritless and should be dismissed with costs. 9. The Respondents did not oppose the application. 10. On 13/7/2026, the Court directed that the application be canvassed by way of written submissions. The parties were directed to file their submissions within 7 days. However, the time for compliance lapsed, and only the Proposed Interested Party/Applicant had filed her submissions. The other parties did not comply. 11. In her submissions dated 27/7/2026, the Applicant notes the Petitioners’ contention that the matter has partly proceeded and that it is coming up for the Respondents’ case and the interested party already on record. She submits that no prejudice will be occasioned to the Petitioners and the 1st Interested Party by allowing the Applicant to highlight only the property LR No. 12062/746, which is listed by the Petitioners among the properties to be invalidated and/or nullified. 12. It is submitted that the applicant’s evidence is crucial, as she will produce documents regarding the validity of the title document, which she states was charged to Equity Bank by her deceased husband. She argues that the Petitioners will have the right to interrogate this evidence and that they will suffer no prejudice if the application is allowed and the Petition proceeds from where it had reached. **Analysis and Determination** 1. After considering the application, the grounds of opposition, and the Applicant’s submissions, the only issue for determination is: Whether the Intended Interested Party/Applicant should be joined as an Interested Party in these proceedings. 2. The Applicant seeks to be joined as Interested Party in the suit on the basis that her deceased husband is a registered owner of one of the suit properties, which is the subject of these proceedings. She has adduced Letters of Administration for the estate of the deceased, a title dated 10/12/1987 in respect of LR No. 12062/746, a Deed Plan and a Registry Index Map. 3. The ‘Mutunga Rules’, the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, Legal Notice No. 117 of 2013, define an interested party as follows. “A person or an entity that has an identifiable stake or legal interest or duty in the proceedings and may not be directly involved in the litigation” 1. Rule 7 of the Mutunga Rules provides that, with leave of the Court, a person may make an oral or written application to be joined as an interested party. The Rules further provide that the Court may, on its own motion, join any interested party to the proceedings before it. 2. Black’s Law Dictionary defines an Interested Party as “a party who has a recognizable stake (and therefore standing) in the matter.” 3. Further, the Supreme Court of Kenya in Communications Commission of Kenya and 4 Others –vs- Royal Media Services Limited & 7 held as follows: “An interested party is one who has a stake in the proceedings, though he or she was not party to the cause ab initio. He or she is one who will be affected by the decision of the Court when it is made, either way. Such a person feels that his or her interest will not be well articulated unless he himself or she herself appears in the proceedings, and champions his or her cause. Similarly, 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: 1. Joinder of a person because his presence will result in the complete settlement of all the question involved in the proceedings; 2. Joinder to provide protection for the rights of a party who would otherwise be adversely affected in law; 3. Joinder to prevent a likely course of proliferated litigation. We ask ourselves the following questions: a) what is the intended party’s state and relevance in the proceedings and b) will the intended interested party suffer any prejudice if denied joinder.?” 1. Has the Applicant satisfied the criteria for joinder as an Interested Party in the proceedings? 2. The law on joinder of interested parties to suits has been settled by the Supreme Court of Kenya in the case of Francis K. Muruatetu and Another vs. Republic & 5 Others (2016) eKLR. The court set out key elements to be considered in an application for joinder as an Interested Party. The elements are as follows: - 3. The Personal interest or stake that the party has in the matter must be set out in the application. The Interest must be clearly identifiable and must be proximate enough to stand apart from anything that is merely peripheral. 4. The prejudice to be suffered by the intended Interested Party in case of non-joinder, must also be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court. It must also be clearly outlined and not something remote. 5. Lastly, a party must, in its application, set out the case and/or submission it intends to make before the court, and demonstrate the relevance of those submissions. It should also demonstrate that these submissions are not merely a replication of what the other parties will be making before the court.” 6. Further, in Skov Estate Limited & 5 Others -vs- Agricultural Development Corporation & Another [2015] eKLR Justice Munyao Sila [as he then was] in dealing with the issue of an Interested Party seeking to be joined in a suit stated as follows; “In my view, for one to convince the court that he/she needs to be enjoined to the suit as interested party, such person must demonstrate that it is necessary that he/she be enjoined in the suit, so that the court may settle all questions involved in the matter. It is not enough for one to merely show that he/she has a cursory interest in the subject matter of litigation. Litigation invariably affects many people. A judgment or order in most cases does not only affect the litigants in the matter. It does have ramifications for others as well and one may very well argue that these others have an interest in the litigation. That is a fair argument, but a mere interest, without a demonstration that the presence of such party will assist in the settlement of the questions involved in the suit, is not enough to entitle one be enjoined in a suit as interested party. In other words, there needs to be a demonstration that the interest of the person goes further than “merely being affected" by the judgment or order. It must be shown that the presence of that person is necessary, so that the issues in the suit may be settled, and that if the person is not enjoined, the court may not be fully equipped to settle the questions in the suit or may be handicapped in one way or another. A joinder may also be allowed if the intended interested party has a claim of his own, which in the circumstances of the matter, needs to be tried, or is convenient to be tried alongside the claims of the incumbent plaintiff and defendant. The threshold for joinder of an interested party should not be too low, or else, this is prone to open doors for busybodies to be joined to proceedings, merely to spectate or confuse the issues in the matter. Apart from the above, whether or not to enjoin a person as an interested party, must be looked at within the context and surrounding circumstances of each particular case.” 1. On perusal of the pleadings herein, including the documents filed, I note that the proposed Interested Party has, in fact, provided a title to the subject property listed by the Petitioners herein. From the facts before me, I am of the view that, since the deceased, through the intended Interested Party, has proprietary rights therein, her involvement in these proceedings is necessary to enable the court to adjudicate effectively and completely upon, and settle, all questions involved in the suit. Further, this will also avoid a multiplicity of suits. 2. Based on the facts as presented and in light of the cited decisions, it is my considered view that the proposed Interested Party is likely to be affected by any decision arising from this suit. 3. It is against the foregoing that I find the Chamber Summons application dated the 23/2/2026 merited and will allow it, in the following terms: 4. That **Pauline Wanjiru Migwi** be and is hereby joined as the 3rd Interested Party. 5. That the 3rd Interested Party is hereby granted leave of 14 days, to file and serve her pleadings, as may be necessary for the just determination of this Constitutional Petition. 6. Costs will be in the cause. 7. It is ordered **DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 6TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026 VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS.** **J. G. KEMEI** **JUDGE** **Delivered Online in the presence of:** 1. N/A for the Petitioners 2. Mr Odayo for the 1st and 2nd Respondents 3. Mr Mandala for the 3rd Interested Party 4. Mr Onyango HB for Ms Nyang for the 2nd Interested Party 5. Ms Micah for the 1st Interested Party 6. N/A for the 3rd -5th Respondents 7. CA- Mr Amos