Kibet & 4 others v Cheboi & 9 others (Environment and Land Case E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3092 (KLR) (22 May 2026) (Ruling)

Kibet & 4 others v Cheboi & 9 others (Environment and Land Case E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3092 (KLR) (22 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3092 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kabarnet Environment and Land Case E006 of 2025 BN Olao, J May 22, 2026 Between Pius Kiprop Kibet 1st Plaintiff Francis Mugo 2nd Plaintiff Issa Ramadhan 3rd Plaintiff Richard Kimalech Kamng’oror 4th Plaintiff Catholic Diocese of Nakuru, Registered Trustees 5th Plaintiff and Willey Cheboi 1st Defendant Gladys Cheboi 2nd Defendant Kiprop Dennis 3rd Defendant Lawi Kipchumba Tallam 4th Defendant Sarah Chemirmir 5th Defendant Land Registrar Eldama Ravine 6th Defendant County Government of Baringo 7th Defendant National Land Commission 8th Defendant Attorney General 9th Defendant and Lembus Council of Elders Through Joseph Leboo, Joseph Tyong’ik and Philip Sura Intended Interested Party Ruling 1.In the case of Francis Karoki Muruatetu and Wilson Thirimbu Mwangi v Republic and Kenya National Commission on Human Rights, Kenya Section of The International Commission of Jurisis, Katiba Institute (interested Parties) and The Death Penalty Project (intended Amicus Curiae), Supreme Court Petition No. 15 of 2015 as consolidated with Petition No. 16 of 2015, [2016 KESC 12 KLR] the Supreme Court at paragraph 37 set out the following elements to guide a court considering an application by a party to be enjoined in proceedings as an Interested Party:“One must move the court by way of a formal application. Enjoinment is not as of right but is at the discretion of the court hence, sufficient grounds must be laid before the court on the basis of the following elements: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. 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. Lastly, a party must, in its application, set out the case and/or submissions 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.” 2.See also the decision of the same court in the case of Attorney General V. David Ndii & others Petition No. 12 E016 of 2020 [2021 KESC 17 KLR]. Further, 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 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 effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added.” Emphasis mine. 3.Courts therefore have a wide discretion, even on their own motion, to enjoin a party as an Interested Party in any proceedings if their participation will assist in the determination of the dispute at hand. And such Interested Party has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as one who has a recognizable stake and therefore standing in the matter. Such a party must however, always recognize that the dispute is between the primary parties who first moved to the court. Pius Kiprop Kibet, Francis Mugo, Stanley Mwaura Kinuthia, Richard Kimalech Kamng’oron and The Catholic Diocese of Nakuru Registered Trustees (the 1st to 5th Plaintiffs respectively) have moved to this court vide their plaint dated 16th April 2025 and filed on 17th April 2025. They seek Judgment against Willey Cheboi, Gladys Cheboi, Kiprop Dennis, Lawi Kipchumba Tallam, Sarah Chemirmir, The Land Registrar Eldama Ravine, The County Government of Baringo, The National Land Commission and The Attorney General (the 1st to 9th Defendants respectively) in the following terms with respect to the land parcels No. Eldama Ravine Township Block L/233 to 237 and un-surveyed plots No. B and C (the suit properties).a.A declaration that the 20 metres wide public road with the reserve along Shimoni – Mercy – Miringwo road is public property the same being a public road.b.A declaration that the encroachment, acquisition, sub-division, transfer and processing of the titles and/or allotment letters by the Defendants in favour of the 1st to 5th Defendants over a portion of the public road reserve along Shimoni – Mercy – Moringwo road were fraudulent, illegal, unlawful, a violation of the law and a nullity.c.An order cancelling the registration of certificates of leases and/or allotment letters for the land parcels Eldama Ravine Township Block 1/233 – 237 and UN Commercial Plot B – Eldama Ravine in favour of the 1st to 5th Defendants emanating from the fraudulent, illegal and unlawful encroachment, acquisition sub-division, transfer and processing of the Certificates of leases and allotment letters, over a portion of the public road and reserve along Shimoni – Mercy – Moringwo road and the parcels revert back to public road and public road reserve.4)An order compelling the 7th, 8th and 9th Defendants to mark and register the encroachment, acquired, sub-divided and transferred portion of the road as a public road reserve.5)A declaration that the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants violated the Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights of access to information and Fair Administrative Action.6)General damages for the violation of the constitutional rights of access to information and Fair Administrative Action.7)Any other just and equitable relief as this Honourable Court may deem fit to grant in the circumstances.8)Costs of this suit. 4.For purposes of this ruling, I shall not delve deeply into the gist of the dispute. But briefly, the Plaintiff’s case is that in the 1960’s during the land adjudication process and through the relevant Government Offices, the residents and community of Eldama Ravine Township reserved a 20 metres wide public road known as Shimoni – Mercy – Moringwo adjacent to the land parcel No. LR/498/125 which is now Eldama Ravine Township Block 1/232 belonging to the 5th Plaintiff which has now been developed into a health institution. That to the Plaintiffs’ shock, the 20 meters wide public road has been sub-divided and transferred to private owners. Over time, the Plaintiffs have sought explanations from the relevant offices including the 6th, 7th and 8th Defendants on how public land was converted into private property but with no response except that vide a letter dated 2nd July 2022, the 8th Defendant promised that the matter was being investigated. The 1st and 5th Defendants are in the process of developing their unlawfully and illegally acquired parcels of land. The particulars of fraud, illegality, breach of law and violation of the right to access to information by the Defendants have been pleaded in paragraphs 47 to 57 of the plaint. That the manner in which the suit properties which are public land were created and registered in favour of the 1st to 5th Defendants plus the withholding of critical information by the 6th to 8th Defendants have necessitated the filing of this suit by the Plaintiff on their own behalf as the beneficial owner of the suit properties and also on behalf of the wider Eldama Ravine Community and users of the Shimoni – Mercy – Moringwo Public road. 5.The record shows that the 1st to 4th Defendants filed a joint statement of defence in which they have averred, inter alia, that they were lawfully allotted their respective suit properties and the Plaintiffs have no locus standi to question their rights. Further, that the Plaintiffs’ suit is barred by section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act and there exists a boundary dispute between the parties and the procedure of resolving it is prescribed in Section 18 of the Land Registration Act. That the 5th Plaintiff being a body corporate by dint of the provision of Section 3 (3) of the Trustees (perpetual succession) Act whose registered Trustees are RT. Rev. Maurice Muhatia Mukumba, Very Rev. Father Simon Kamau ought to move the court through those Trustees and not strangers. And with regard to the breaches of the Fair Administrative Action Act and the Access to Information Act, there are prescribed remedial procedures set at in those Acts and therefore, this court has no jurisdiction to entertain such matters in this suit. Further, the 5th Defendant died in 2004 and has not been succeeded under the Law of Succession Act. 6.The 6th and 9th Defendants also filed a joint defence dated 16th May 2025. 7.They have denied the allegation of having colluded with the other Defendants to sub-divide and transfer a section of the Shimoni – Mercy – Moringwo road and put the plaintiffs to strict proof thereof. They have pleaded that they are strangers to the claim. That they illegally, unlawfully, unprocedurally and fraudulently encroached upon a public road and created land parcels No. Eldama Ravine/Township 1233, 1234, 1235. 1236 and 1237 as well as un-surveyed plots No. B and C and put the Plaintiffs to strict proof thereof. They also denied having violated the Fair Administrative Action Act and the Access to Information Act. 8.As at the time of this ruling, the 5th, 7th and 8th Defendants have yet to file any defences. 9.I notice from the record that vide a ruling delivered on 25th September 2025, Waithaka J. dismissed an application by the 1st to 4th Defendants seeking to strike out the Plaintiffs’ suit for want of jurisdiction and also for being statute barred. 10.What calls from my determination is the Notice of Motion dated 28th October 2025 and filed on 4th November, 2025 by the Lembus Council of Elders through Joseph Leboo, Joseph Tyong’ik and Philip Sura (the Intended Interested Party/Applicants) seeking the following orders:1.That the Honourable Court be pleased to join Lembus Council of Elders/Applicants as Interested Party herein in this suit.2.That the Honourable court be pleased to grant leave to the Intended Interested Party/Applicant to file defence, response and/or such documents.3.That the costs of this application be in the cause. 11.The Motion is anchored on the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Order 51 Rule 7(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules as well as Sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. It is based on the grounds set out therein and supported by the affidavit of Joseph L. Leboo their Chairman. 12.The gist of the motion is that the Applicants are resident of Eldama Ravine Township and part of the community having lived there for long as senior citizens. They are therefore well versed with the issues the subject of this case and have a direct interest in this matter as most of them were civil servants in the Government Department. 13.That in the 1960’s, the suit properties were indeed reserved as part of a 20 meters wide road known as Shimoni – Mercy – Moringwo but from which the suit properties have been hived. That in-fact the Applicants who include a former Councillor were themselves in the process of instituting their own suit when they became aware that the Plaintiffs had moved to court already. 14.That the suit properties being part of a road reserve and by extension public land as per the Development Plan of 1994 from the Ministry of Lands and Settlement, they were no longer available for alienation. That the Defendants in collusion, unlawfully, illegally and unprocedurally encroached onto the portion of 20 meters reserved as a public road and which also has public utilities from power, water and sewerage and which has also been earmarked for tarmacking on the main road linking Eldama Ravine and Eldoret. However, the Defendants have grabbed the said portion and created the suit properties namely parcels No. Eldama Ravine Township Blocks 1/233, 1/234, 1/235, 1/236, 1/237 and un-surveyed plots No. B and C and issued letter of Allotment to the 1st to 5th Defendants. 15.The Applicants are aware that vide a report by the 7th Defendant dated 22nd February 2023, it was confirmed that indeed a section of the public road had been sub-divided to create the suit properties and allocated to the 1st to 5th Defendants who have commenced erection of structures thereon but were stopped by this court. That the 1st Defendant is a brother to the Governor of the County Government of Baringo and is colluding with the 7th Defendant. The Applicants were instrumental in the recovery of Navasha Forest within Eldama Ravine which was about to be grabbed and they have entered into a memorandum of understanding with the County Government of Baringo under the leadership of H. E. Benjamin Cheboi to protect the Lembus Forest among others since land grabbing is very rampant in Eldama Ravine. 16.It is therefore important for this court to enjoin them in this case being a matter of public interest and the Defendants will not suffer any prejudice since the suit properties are public land. 17.The following documents have been annexed to the Motion:1.Copy of certificate of Registration No. 25243 issued to Lembus Council of Elders on 9th August 2005.2.Copy of letter dated 19th September 2025 authorizing Joseph K. Leboo to swear relevant documents on behalf of Lembus Council of Elders and also to join this suit.3.Copy of Part Development Plan dated 9th June 19944.Copy of Certificate of Official Search for the land parcel No. Eldama-Ravine Township/Block 1/234 in the name of Lawi Kipchumba Tallam.5.Copy of certificate of Official Search for the land parcel No. Eldama-Raving Township Block 1/235 in the name of Lawi Kipchumba Tallam.6.Copy of Certificate of Official Search for the land parcel No. Eldama-Ravine Township Block 1/236 in the name of Gladys Cheboi.7.Copy of Certificate of Official Search for the land parcel No. Eldama-Ravine Township Block 1/237 in the name of Willy Cheboi.8.Copy of Certificate of lease for the land parcel No. Eldama Ravine Township Block 1/237 in the name of Willy Cheboi.9.Copy of Certificate of lease for the land parcel No. Eldama-ravine Township/Block 1/236 in the name of Gladys Cheboi.10.Copy of certificate of lease for the land parcel No. Eldama Ravine Township Block 1/233 in the name of Kiprop Denis.11.Letter of Allotment dated 6th July 1998 issued to Sarah Chemirmir for plot No. Uns-commercial Plot B Eldama Ravine.12.Copy of letter dated 22nd February 2023 from the Baringo County Government ref Land Dispute between Mercy Hospital & 5 others.13.Judgment in Nakuru Chief Magistrate’s Court Case No. E056 of 2005 Eliud Maina Mundia & 3 Others V. Lydia Chebet & 10 others over plots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H & J within Eldama Ravine Township by which the named Defendants were injuncted from the said plots.14.Copy of the Memorandum of Understanding dated 4th July 2022 between H. E Benjamin Cheboi and the Lembus Council of Elders. 18.The Plaintiffs did not oppose the Motion and so too did the 6th and 9th Defendants. The other parties did not also oppose the motion. Indeed, the 1st Plaintiff filed a replying affidavit dated 3rd December 2025 in which he has deposed, inter alia that the Plaintiffs support the Motion. Perhaps he should have filed a supporting affidavit rather than a replying affidavit but noting turns on that. 19.Only the 1st to 4th Defendants filed a replying affidavit dated 19th November 2025 and signed by the 1st Defendant on behalf of the 1st to 4th Defendants. He has deponed, inter alia, that the Lembus Council of Elders is an Un-incorporated entity and therefore lacks the Judicial Capacity to sue or to be sued in its own name. it cannot therefore be joined in this suit as it has not tendered any constitution or records of returns submitted under the Societies Act. That the Applicants have not tendered what is at stake to enable them be enjoined in these proceedings. That the Memorandum of Understanding and the Judgment in Nakuru CMC Case No. E1056 of 2025 have no probative value in this case as they are not related to this case. In any event, H. E. Benjamin Cheboi is not a party in this suit in which the Plaintiffs have only raised wild and un-substantiated allegations of land grabbing. This court should therefore strike out paragraphs 21 to 29 of the supporting affidavit for being scandalous, irrelevant and oppressive as the allegations have been made against one who is not a party to this case i.e H. E. Benjamin Cheboi. That some of the documents filed by the Plaintiffs in this case should be expunged for having been filed contrary to the provisions of the Access to Information Act. That this court should order Joseph Lebo, Joseph Tyongik and Philip Sura who claim to act for and on behalf of Lembus Council of Elders to be condemned to pay punitive costs and an order for taxation be made as a way of deprecating such practise. 20.Joseph R. Leboo filed a further affidavit dated 2nd December 2025 in respect to the replying affidavit. He has deponed, inter alia, that Lembus Council of Elders is a registered Society hence it has the locus standi to file the motion. That the law does not discriminate against un-incorporated entities filing applications as interested parties. Further, that the Applicants’ stake in these proceedings is clear. 21.With regard to the Judgment in Nakuru CMC Case No. E1056 of 2025, it is intended to show that the Defendants are in the habit of Land grabbing and the Memorandum of Understanding is essential to demonstrate that there is need to protect public land. No case has been made to warrant the striking out of the listed paragraphs of the supporting affidavit which are meant to show that the suit properties are public land. A party should not be penalised with costs in a public interest litigation and it is in the interest of justice that the motion be allowed. 22.The court directed that the motion be canvassed by way of written submissions. The same have been filed both by Mr. Tanga instructed by the firm of M. C. Getanda, Tanga & Company Advocates for the Applicant, by Mr. Ndungu instructed by the firm of Ndungu Gichuhi & Company Advocates for the Plaintiffs and by Mr. Mogambi instructed by the firm of Wambua Kigamwa & Company Advocates for the 1st to 4th Defendants. 23.I have considered the motion, the rival affidavits and the submissions by counsel. 24.Before I delve into the merits or otherwise of the Applicant’s Motion. It has been suggested by counsel for the 1st to 4th Defendants in his submissions and also in the replying affidavit by the Defendants that Lembus Council of Elders being the Applicant is an unincorporated entity and therefore lacks the capacity to sue or be sued and it cannot be joined in these proceedings as an Interested Party. The case of Forthall Bakery Supply Company V. Fredrick Mungai Wangoe 1959 E.A 474 has been cited for that proposition. Counsel has gone on to add that other than the certificate of Registration, the Applicants have not tendered their Constitution to demonstrate that Joseph Leboo, Joseph Tyong’ik and Philip Sura are authorised to act on its behalf and neither has the Applicant filed its returns. 25.There is no doubt that the Applicant is registered under the Societies Act Chapter 108 Laws of Kenya. It has availed the registration certificate No. 25243 issued to it on 9th August 2005. Whether or not it has filed its returns has really no bearing on its capacity to sue, to be sued or to be enjoined in these proceedings as sought by their motion under consideration. There is also a letter dated 19th September 2025 signed by the Applicant’s Chairman Joseph Leboo authorising him to swear any pleadings on its behalf. It is my finding, therefore, that the Applicant has the capacity to be enjoined in these proceedings and the same cannot be besmirched as the 1st to 4th Defendants have attempted to. 26.Having settled the issue with regard to the Applicant’s capacity, I can now consider the merits or otherwise of the motion. 27.At the commencement of this ruling, I set out the applicable law and principles which should guide this court in considering this motion. I must also observe that there is no merit in the suggestion by the 1st to 4th Defendants that I should strike out paragraphs 21 to 29 of the Applicants’ supporting affidavit as I do not see what wild allegations have been made. If the 1st Defendant has no relationship with H. E. the Governor of Baringo, nothing stopped him from swearing an affidavit to that effect. And with relation to the said Governor, the Memorandum of Understanding executed with the Applicant on 4th July 2022 and bearing his signature is basically a public document which speaks for itself and no ill motive is reflected on the part of H. E. the Governor. If anything, it is a demonstration of his support in protecting the Environment and Public property. That is the thrust of this suit. 28.The prime issue is whether the Applicants have satisfied the threshold of being joined in this case as Interested parties. 29.The Applicants have stated, without rebuttal, that they are residents of Eldama Ravine Township who have lived therein for long. Some of them are Civil Servants who have worked in the relevant Government Departments while one is a former Councillor who sat in meetings which approved the 20 meters wide road. 30.In paragraph 7 and 8 of the supporting affidavit by Joseph R. Leboo, it is averred as follows:7:“That we are senior residents of Eldama Ravine Township and we have lived here for too long and we are well versed with the issues raised in this case and hence we are in a position to shed light to the Honourable court that will enable the court to fairly adjudicate this matter”8:“That most of our members were civil servants in relevant government departments and we have a former Councillor who sat in meetings deliberating on the 20 meters wide road and hence privy to the matters herein and our input is crucial in assisting this Honourable court to determine this matter”. 31.In response to the above averments, the 1st Defendant in his replying affidavit sworn on behalf of the 1st to 4th Defendants has averred in paragraphs 8 and 10 as follows;8:“That the applicant has not tendered any proof of what stake it has over the dispute before the court as between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants”10:“That the applicant being bereft of a demonstrated stake and capacity to litigate in this matter is at best a busy body which lacks locus standi in this matter.” 32.In their motion, the Applicants have not only demonstrated their interest in this matter but they have gone further to annexe relevant documents to support their case. I do not consider the Applicant to be a “busy body” as suggested by the 1st to 4th Defendants. A busy body is defined in the Collins English Dictionary as“a meddlesome, prying or officious person. It is used to describe someone who interferes in other people’s affairs often implying criticism”. 33.The Concise Oxford English Dictionary defines the same person as;“a meddling or prying person” 34.I do not think those definitions are a fair description of the Applicants. If anything, it is beyond doubt that their involvement in these proceedings is made in good faith “In order to enable the court effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in this suit” as provided under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. 35.Ultimately therefore and having considered the Notice of Motion dated 28th October 2025, I allow it and direct as follows:1.The Applicant be enjoined in these proceedings as Interested party.2.They shall have 21 days from the date of this ruling to file and serve their pleadings on all the other parties.3.The other parties, if need be, will have 14 days from the date of service upon them of the Interested Party’s pleadings and documents to file and serve their responses thereto.4.The suit shall thereafter be mentioned on 28th July, 2026 for further directions.­5.Costs shall be in the cause. BOAZ N. OLAOJUDGE22ND MAY 2026RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ON THIS 22ND DAY OF MAY, 2026 BY WAY OF ELECTRONIC MAIL.BOAZ N. OLAOJUDGE22ND MAY 2026