https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5127

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAJIADO** **ELC CASE NO. E084 OF 2021** JACOB KILOKU……………... …………...…………………………………..…1ST PLAINTIFF SOLOMON SINKEET KILOKU…………………………..……………………..2ND PLAINTIFF VERSUS WAMBUA KITHAKA ……………….………………….……………………1ST DEFENDANT THEOPHILE MWAI KASOO…………………………………………………2ND DEFENDANT ROSARIAH KAMUU MUINDI…………………………………………….…3RD DEFENDANT MARTIN MUTUNGWA MWANIA…………………………………………….4TH DEFNDANT HENRY MULI NDIVO………………………………………………………..5TH DEFENDANT JULIUS MWONGELA NDIVO……………………………………………….6TH DEFENDANT FRANCIS NZUE NZIOKA……………………………………………………7TH DEFENDANT JULIUS NZWILI KING’OO…………………………………………………..8TH DEFENDANT BONIFACE WAMBUA KYEVA……………………………………………..9TH DEFENDANT MAILU KASUMBA……………………………………………………….....10TH DEFENDANT PETER KAKU MATUKU………………………………………..………….11TH DEFENDANT JOSEPH MWONGELA MUITHA……………………………………………12TH DEFENDANT FRANCIS NGOKU SAMBA…………………………………………………13TH DEFENDANT JOHN KYULU………………………………………………………………..14TH DEFENDANT BENARD MAUTHI…………………………………………………………..15TH DEFENDANT CHARLES NYUUNGU MUTHIKI………………………………………….16TH DEFENDANT DOMINIC SAMUEL MAWEU………………………………………………17TH DEFENDANT MWEMA KASEKA…………………………………………………………..18TH DEFENDANT ANDREW KIETI KITAVI……………………………………………………19TH DEFENDANT FREDRICK MUINDI…………………………………………………………20TH DEFENDANT MARTIN MUINDI………………………………………………………..….21ST DEFENDANT VIRGINIA MBOYA………………………………………………………….22ND DEFENDANT PETER KYUKI WAMBUA………………………………………………….23RD DEFENDANT ONESMUS MAUNDU……………………………………………………….24TH DEFENDANT LEONARD AMWAYI MUSONYE……………………………………….....25TH DEFENDANT DONALD MUTLYA WAEMA………………………………………………26TH DEFENDANT JAMES MUSYOKI KIILU…………………………………………………...27TH DEFENDANT REGINA MUKAMI…………………………………………………………..28TH DEFENDANT SAITON KILOKUOLE LITIK……………………………………………….29TH DEFENDANT DUNCAN PARSELETO KILOKU…………………………………………..30TH DEFENDANT FRANCIS KAPAAI KILOKU………………………………………………..31ST DEFENDANT RITEI ENE KILOKU LITIK………………………………………………….32ND DEFENDANT PARMEYIAN OLE KELOKU………………………………………………..33RD DEFENDANT JOSHUA KENAYIA KELOKU…………………………………..…………..34TH DEFENDANT **RULING** ***(Being directions on the progression of the matter with specific reference to the Interested Parties in the Counter-claim)*** **Introduction** 1. On 20th May 2025, the court noted that though this matter had been listed for hearing, there were a number of outstanding pre-trial issues. The court therefore directed that before the matter could be set down for hearing again, it be listed for a pre-trial conference. In the meantime the court directed that; 2. Parties to file paginated trial bundles which were to include their pleadings, list and bundle of documents, list of witnesses and witness statements and issues for determination. 3. Each party to avail a hard copy of its respective trial bundle for use by the court. 4. On the subsequent mention date, on 22nd September 2025, Mr. Wasolo Advocate who represents the majority of the Defendants informed the court that he had complied with the directions of 20th May 2025. However, one of his clients, the 24th Defendant had passed on, on 22nd July 2025 and would therefore need to be substituted with his personal representatives. 5. The substitution of the 24th Defendant was apparently effected through the further amended statement of Defence and Counter-claim further amended on 15th October 2025 and filed in court on 4th November 2026, pursuant to the leave of the court granted on 22nd September 2025. 6. From my perusal of the pleadings in this matter there are 6th Interested Parties joined into the proceedings vide the Counter-claim by the Defendants. The Defendants describe the Interested Parties as ‘male and female adults of sound mind, residents of Kajiado County and family members of the Late Keloku Ole Litik Olooshoera, the registered owner of plot No. Kajiado/Kaputiei/Central/533’. 7. The Defendants further state that the Interested Parties are illegally and unlawfully registered owners of plot No. Kajiado/Kaputiei/Central/533 in which the Defendants have purchasers’ interests. 8. The Defendants in their Counter claim have a substantive claim against the Interested Parties because they seek to be declared as bona fide purchasers for value of plot No. Kajiado/Kaputiei/Central/533 (registered in the names of the Interested Parties) **and in the alternative** asowners by adverse possession. They further seek the nullification of any subdivision of the said parcel of land and any registration effected in favour of the Interested Parties amongst the other orders. 9. It is well settled that an Interested Party may not frame its own issues or introduce new issues for determination by the court. The participation of an Interested Party in a suit is limited. An interested party cannot even file pleadings in a suit. 10. The Supreme Court of Kenya in ***Francis Karioki Muruatetu & another v Republic & 5 others, Sup Ct Pet 15 & 16 of 2015 (consolidated); [2016] eKLR***, was categorical (paragraphs 41, 42) that: ***“Having carefully considered all arguments, we are of the opinion that any party seeking to join proceedings in any capacity, must come to terms with the fact that the overriding interest or stake in any matter is that of the primary/principal parties’ before the court. The determination of any matter will always have a direct effect on the primary/principal parties. Third parties admitted as interested parties may only be remotely or indirectly affected, but the primary impact is on the parties that first moved the court. This is true, more so, in proceedings that were not commenced as Public Interest Litigation (PIL), like the proceedings now before us.*** ***Therefore, in every case, whether some parties are enjoined as interested parties or not, the issues to be determined by the court will always remain the issues as presented by the principal parties, or as framed by the court from the pleadings and submissions of the principal parties. An interested party may not frame its own fresh issues or introduce new issues for determination by the court. One of the principles for admission of an interested party is that such a party must demonstrate that he/she has a stake in the matter before the court. That stake cannot take the form of an altogether a new issue to be introduced before the court.”*** 1. By joining the 6 Interested Parties as such when they have a substantive claim against them, the Defendants have denied them the opportunity to defend the claims against them thereby denying them the right to a fair trial. 2. This court exercising its authority under Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and its inherent authority reserved under section 3A of the Act, for the ends of justice, directs that the Defendants’ Counter claim be appropriately amended in the next 21 days to strike out the 6 Interested Parties named as such therein and instead add them as Defendants in the Counter claim in addition to the Plaintiffs in the main suit. The Counter claim should comply with the provisions of Order 7 of the Civil Procedure Rules for clarity. The service upon the 6 Defendants shall be physical and personal. 3. The Plaintiffs on their part must also demonstrate service upon all the Defendants; more so, those Defendants not represented by the law firm of P. Wasolo & Company Advocates. 4. Further directions on the hearing of the case shall follow upon compliance with the above orders. It is so ordered. **Dated, Signed and Delivered at Kajiado Virtually this 30th Day of July 2026.** **M.D. MWANGI** **JUDGE** **In the virtual presence of:** N/A by the Parties Court Assistant: Alex **M.D. MWANGI** **JUDGE**