https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5294

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAKURU** **ELC NO E37 OF 2021** **MUTHINI KIMONYI**................................................................**...1ST PLAINTIFF** **ASSUMPTA WANGUI MUIRURI…………………………….2ND PLAINTIFF** **JOHN MWANGI KIGUTA……………………………………3RD PLAINTIFF** **VERSUS** **ROBINSON LEIRO**...................................................................**1ST DEFENDANT** **ELIJAH LETANGULE……………………………………….2ND DEFENDANT** **NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION…………………………3RD DEFENDANT** **COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NAKURU…………………4TH DEFENDANT** **CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR NAIROBI……………………5TH DEFENDANT** **ATTORNEY GENERAL……………………………………..6TH DEFENDANT** **AND** **PETER NJOROGE……………1ST PROPOSED INTERESTED PARTY** **PETER KAGWARA………………2ND PROPOSED INTERESTED PARTY** **GEORGE MBUGUA………………3RD PROPOSED INTERESTED PARTY** **RULING** 1. This ruling is in respect of Notice of Motion dated 9th September, 2025, by the Proposed Interested Parties seeking the following orders: 2. ***Spent*** 3. ***That the Honourable Court be pleased to enjoin the proposed interested parties as interested parties in this case.*** 4. ***That the costs of this Application be provided for.*** 5. The application is based on the supporting affidavit of Peter Njoroge, the 1st proposed interested party, who deponed that in the year 1997, the late former President Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi directed that the 5.232-hectare parcel of land (LR No. 15151) be allocated to their Association, where over 1,100 members have operated their businesses for decades. He stated that the group has faced persistent challenges, including the destruction of fences and business structures. 6. He further deponed that on 10th March, 2021, the 1st and 2nd defendants invaded the property claiming rights as registered owners. He stated that the proposed interested parties formed a group, which was supposed to benefit from the land and had been conducting their business for decades in the suit property. He contended that any decision by the court will directly affect the livelihoods of 1,100-plus members, hence joining them as interested parties is essential in the interest of justice. 7. The Proposed interested Parties filed a further affidavit dated 21st April, 2026, by the 1st proposed interested party, on behalf of the proposed Interested Parties, and stated that Nakuru West Jua Kali Association is a duly registered association with a direct proprietary interest in the suit property. 8. He clarified that the reference to "Jua Kali Members Association" in the earlier application had been an inadvertent error and that the correct entity was Nakuru West Jua Kali Association. Further, that the Association had over 1,719 members who were the bona fide allottees and beneficial owners of the suit property, and that the 1st and 2nd Defendants had unlawfully attempted to acquire it. 9. It was the Applicant’s case that the proposed Interested Parties possessed crucial historical and documentary evidence, including correspondence with the National Land Commission, which was necessary to determine the true ownership of the property, and failure to join them in the proceedings would prejudice their members’ proprietary rights and could result in multiplicity of suits. He urged the court to allow the application as prayed. 10. The 2nd Plaintiff filed a replying affidavit dated 13th April, 2026, on her own behalf and with the authority of the 1st and 3rd Plaintiffs, opposing the proposed interested parties' application for joinder in the suit. 11. She deponed that the suit land, LR No. 15151, was allocated to the Nakuru Municipality Jua Kali Association, an entity registered on 3rd May, 1997 under the Kenya National Federation of Jua Kali Association and comprising the Nakuru Municipality Jua Kali Artisan, Shabab Jua Kali Association, and Central Jua Kali Associations all established in the 1990’s for which the Plaintiffs act as trustees, in 1997 by the late President Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi. 12. It was the 2nd Plaintiff’s averment that the proposed interested parties/or Jua Kali Members Association, are not members of the Nakuru Municipality Jua Kali Association, but are rather an entity formed to hijack the court process, disrupt the Plaintiffs’ claim of ownership of the suit land. She further stated that the proposed interested parties have neither attached any registration certificate for their Jua Kali Members Association to confirm whether it is a registered entity and the date of establishment, nor attached a list of 1,100 members they claim to be conducting business on the suit property. Furthermore, the deponent highlighted that despite the matter having been active before the court since 2021, the proposed interested parties did not explain their inexcusable delay in seeking to be joined, or clarify how they became aware of the proceedings. 13. Consequently, the deponent asserted that the proposed interested parties have no legal or proprietary claim either in their individual capacity/or collectively as members of Jua Kali Members Association over the suit property, hence the application to be joined as proposed interested parties is not made in good faith and is an abuse of court process. The Plaintiffs urged the court to dismiss the application with costs. 14. The 1st Defendant filed a replying affidavit sworn on 13th April 2026, with the authority of the 2nd Defendant, and stated that the Applicants have not placed any materials before the court to warrant being joined in this case as interested parties. 15. The Defendant further averred that the Applicants have neither produced a Certificate of Registration for the Jua Kali Members Association, nor provided evidence that the late President Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi allocated Land Parcel No. 15151 measuring 5.232 Ha, to their Association in 1997. Further, that they have not demonstrated any challenges in accessing the subject land, or how the decision of the court, if pronounced between the primary parties would affect them. 16. It was the Defendant’s case that the Applicants are busybodies and unnecessary intermeddlers attempting to gatecrash a dispute unrelated to their imagined interests, and urged the court to dismiss the Application with costs to the 1st and 2nd Defendants. **PROPOSED INTERESTED PARTIES’ SUBMISSIONS** 1. Counsel for the proposed interested parties filed submissions dated 11th March, 2026, and identified one issue for determination as to whether the application has merits. 2. Counsel submitted that while the Civil Procedure Rules do not specifically mention ‘interested parties’, the law allows the application for the joinder of interested parties, under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (as amended in 2020), which grants the Court discretion to add any necessary party whose presence is required to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. 3. Ms. Esang relied on the case of **Njogu & 2 others v Githinji & 2 others; Ngiricha & 4 others (Intended Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case 151 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 936 (KLR) (27 February 2025) (Ruling)**, which highlights that Constitutional Petitions under the Mutunga Rules (Legal Notice No. 117 of 2013) has specific provisions for interested parties. Counsel further relied on the Supreme Court decision of Francis **Karioki Muruatetu & another v Republic & 5 others [2016] eKLR**, which established three key principles for joinder. 4. Applying these principles to the present suit, the Proposed Interested Parties’ counsel submitted that the Applicants have established a direct, identifiable interest in the suit property, LR No. 15151, measuring approximately 5.232 hectares, which was allocated for the benefit of the over 1,100 members of the Jua Kali Members Association. 5. As the Chairman, Secretary, and Chair of the Organizing Committee, the Applicants contended that they represent the collective interests of their members who occupy and depend on the suit property for their economic livelihood. Counsel submitted that the dispute between the Plaintiffs and Defendants revolves around the ownership and control of the very parcel of land upon which the proposed interested parties claim beneficial rights. 6. It was counsel’s further submission that a decision rendered in this case would negatively affect the interests of over 1100 members of the Jua Kali Members Association and their participation will assist the Court in understanding the historical background of the allocation, occupation of the land, as well as the circumstances surrounding the invasion of the land on 10th March, 2021 by the 1st and 2nd Defendants. Counsel urged the court to allow the Application as prayed. **PLAINTIFF/RESPONDENT’S SUBMISSIONS** 1. Counsel for the Plaintiff filed submissions dated 13th May, 2026, and identified the issue for determination as to whether or not the Applicants have sufficiently demonstrated the test under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2020. 2. Counsel relied on Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, as well as the guiding principles established in the cases of Trusted **Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu & 5 Others SC Petition (Application) No. 12 of 2013 and Francis Kariuki Muruatetu & Another v Republic & 85 Others,** and submitted that the court has the discretion to allow or reject joinder of interested parties. To succeed, an applicant must demonstrate a clearly identifiable personal interest proximate to the matter, show prejudice resulting from non-joinder, and present submissions that are relevant and not merely repetitive of existing parties. 3. Mr. Opar, further submitted that there is a contradiction in the Applicants' position, noting that while they initially claimed their members were allocated the suit property (LR No. 15151), by the late President Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi in 1997, they subsequently asserted in a further affidavit dated 21st April, 2026, that they belong to "Nakuru West Jua Kali Association," an entity registered only on 11th September,2025. 4. The Plaintiffs maintain that the suit property was allocated to them in 1997 when their entity, Nakuru Municipality Jua Kali Association, was already registered; making it impossible for officials of an entity formed in 2025 to claim ownership of the same land. 5. Additionally, counsel submitted that Applicants have also failed to demonstrate any prejudice they would suffer if excluded, and their failure to act until the eve of the hearing despite being aware of the suit since March 2021, and urged the court to dismiss the Application with costs to the Plaintiffs. **1ST AND 2ND DEFENDANTS’ SUBMISSIONS** 1. Counsel for the 1st and 2nd Defendants filed submissions dated 8th June 2026, and relied on the cases of **Francis Karioko Muruatetu & Another v. Republic, Supreme Court Petition No. 15 (as consolidated with Petition No. 16 of 2013) [2016] eKLR,** and **Judicial Service Commission v. Speaker of the National Assembly & Another [2013] eKLR,** on the applicable principles on joinder of interested parties. 2. Mr. Karanja Mbugua further relied on the case of Skov **Estates Ltd & 5 Others v. Agricultural Development Corporation & Another [2015] eKLR**, and submitted that a party seeking joinder must show that their presence is necessary to enable the court to fully settle all questions in dispute, rather than merely demonstrating a cursory interest or that they are simply affected by the judgment, as a lower threshold would open the doors to busybodies and confuse issues. 3. Finally, counsel cited the case of Marigat **Group Ranch & 3 Others v. Wesley Chepkoimet & 19 Others [2014] eKLR**, and submitted that an applicant must fit within the essential criteria of being a party whose presence before the court is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon the suit, and urged the court to dismiss the Proposed Interested Parties' Application dated 9th September 2025, with costs. **ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION** 1. The issue for determination is as to whether the Applicants have satisfied the legal threshold for joinder as interested parties in this suit. According to the **Black’s Law Dictionary, 8th Edition**, an interested party has been defined as, ***“…a party who has a recognizable stake and therefore a standing in the matter.”*** 2. Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that: ***(2)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. In the case of **Kingori vs Chege & 3 Others [2002] 2 KLR 243, Nambuye** J, (as she then was), restated the principles for determination whether or not to join a party in proceedings as follows: 2. ***He must be a necessary party.*** 3. ***He must be a proper party.*** 4. ***In the case of the defendant there must be a relief flowing from that defendant to the plaintiff.*** 5. ***The ultimate order or decree cannot be enforced without his presence in the matter.*** 6. ***His presence is necessary to enable the Court effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.*** 7. In the case of **Judicial Service Commission –v- Speaker of the National Assembly & another [2013] eKLR,** the High Court defined an Interested Party as follows: ***“…a person with an identifiable stake or legal interest in the proceedings hence may not be said to be wholly non-partisan as he is likely to urge the Court to make a determination favourable to his stake in the proceedings.”*** 1. Similarly, in the case of Trusted **Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemo & 5 others [2014] eKLR**, the Supreme Court held that: ***“[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…”*** 1. Additionally, the Supreme Court in **Francis K. Muruatetu & another v Republic & 5 Others [2016] eKLR** set out the key elements for consideration in an application for joinder as an Interested Party as follows: 2. ***Joinder of a person because his presence will result in the complete settlement of all the question involved in the proceedings;*** 3. ***Joinder to provide protection for the rights of a party who would otherwise be adversely affected in law.*** 4. ***Joinder to prevent a likely course of proliferated litigation.*** 5. The Applicants contend that the suit property LR No. 15151 measuring 5.232 hectares, was allocated to the Association by the late President Daniel Toroitich Arap Moi and that the members who are over 1100 have occupied and operated businesses on the Land for decades. It was their case that the dispute directly affects their members’ livelihoods and their participation in the proceedings is necessary to present the historical circumstances surrounding the allocation and occupation of the property. 6. From the Application and the supporting affidavits, the Applicants have not attached any documentary evidence to support their claim of allocation of the suit land. The Plaintiffs, on the other hand, produced evidence that the land was allocated to the Nakuru Municipality Jua Kali Association, an entity registered in 1997. The court notes that the Applicants described themselves as officials of Nakuru West Jua Kali Association, an entity registered in 2025 which is inconsistent with their claim that they were allocated the land in 1997. 7. The Applicants have also not satisfactorily demonstrated the prejudice they stand to suffer if they are not joined in the proceedings. While the Applicants state that the outcome of the suit may affect their livelihood, they have not shown the legal right that would be affected by a determination between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. 8. I find that the Applicants have failed to satisfy the requirements for joinder as interested parties under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the case of **Francis K. Muruatetu & Ano v Republic & 5 Others [2016] eKLR.** The Applicants have neither established a proximate legal interest in the suit property, nor demonstrated prejudice they are likely to suffer if they are not joined to participate in the proceedings. 9. Consequently, the Notice of Motion dated 9th September, 2025, is hereby dismissed with costs as it lacks merit. **DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAKURU THIS 18TH DAY OF AUGUST 2026.** **M. A. ODENY** **JUDGE**