Kipyegon v Chumo & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 10 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 3404 (KLR) (4 June 2026) (Ruling)

Kipyegon v Chumo & 3 others (Environment and Land Case 10 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 3404 (KLR) (4 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3404 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kericho Environment and Land Case 10 of 2020 LA Omollo, J June 4, 2026 Between Philiph Rop Kipyegon Plaintiff and Samwel Kipkemoi Chumo 1st Defendant Reuben Kipkoech Rop 2nd Defendant and Gilbert Kimutai Ruto 1st Intended Interested Party Victor Kimutai Koech 2nd Intended Interested Party Ruling Introduction. 1.This ruling is in respect of the Intended Interested Parties/Applicants Notice of Motion application dated 10th November, 2023. The application is expressed to be brought under Articles 159 and 258 of the Constitution of Kenya, Sections 1A, 1B, 3 & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 53 Rule 3 (2), 4 and 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 2.The application seeks the following prayers;1.Spent2.That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant leave to the Applicants herein Gilbert Kimutai Ruto and Victor Kimutai Koech to be enjoined as Interested Parties in these proceedings.3.That upon leave being granted, the Plaintiff/Respondent and the Defendants be directed to serve the Interested Parties with their pleadings.4.That the Interested Parties be granted leave to respond to the Plaintiff/Respondent’s pleadings.5.That costs of this application be provided for. 3.The application is based on the grounds on its face and the supporting affidavit of Gilbert Kimutai Ruto that is sworn on 10th November, 2023. Factual Background. 4.The Plaintiff/Respondent commenced the present proceedings vide the Plaint dated 5th March, 2020 wherein he seeks the following prayers;a.An order of injunction restraining the 1st and 2nd Defendants by themselves or their agents from subdividing, transferring, selling and or doing any other act that prejudices the Plaintiff right to equal use and enjoyment of Kericho/Kabartegan/1013, 1135, 1851 & 1852 (formerly Kericho/Kabartegan/74).b.An order revoking all the title deeds that have been issued against Kericho/Kabartegan/74, that is, Kericho/Kabartegan/1012, 1013, 1135, 1851 & 1852.c.An order directing the 1st & 2nd Defendants to subdivide Kericho/Kabartegan/1013, 1135, 1851 & 1852 (formerly Kericho/Kabartegan/74) into seven equal portions and transfer the same be declared null and void. (sic)d.Any other further relief that this Honourable Court may deem just and fit to grant.e.Cost (sic) of the suit. 5.The Defendants/Respondents filed their Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated 21st September, 2020. They seek the following order in their Counterclaim;a.An order to issue directing the Plaintiff (now Defendant) to sign mutation form, transfer form and application for consent form and/or appear before the Kapkatet Land Control Board with a view of seeking approval/consent for the transfer of 2 portions one measuring 0.384 Ha and the other 0.05 Ha to be excised out of Kericho/Kabartegan/1851 and Kericho/Kabartegan/1133 respectively and in default, the Deputy Registrar of this Honourable Court shall sign all the relevant documents and forms aforementioned on behalf of the Plaintiff (now Defendant) in respect of land parcel Kericho/Kabartegan/1851 and Kericho/Kabartegan/1133. 6.The application under consideration first came up for hearing on 17th February, 2026. Counsel for the 2nd Defendant/Respondent informed the Court that they would not be opposing the said application. 7.The Court then issued directions that the application be canvassed by way of written submissions. 8.On 14th April, 2026, the application was mentioned to confirm filing of submissions and then reserved for ruling. The Intended Interested Parties/Applicants Contention. 9.The affidavit in support of the application is sworn by the 1st Intended Interested Party/Applicant. 10.He contends that he has the authority of the 2nd Intended Interested Party/Applicant to swear the affidavit. 11.He also contends that the Court delivered a ruling on 6th July, 2023 on the mediation agreement dated 24th February, 2023. 12.He further contends that they purchased portions of land from the registered proprietor with the consent of the beneficiaries. (sic) 13.It is his contention that any decision made by this Court will directly affect them and adds that if they are not joined to the suit they will suffer irreparable loss and damage that can not be adequately compensated by an award of damages. 14.It is also his contention that it will be prudent for this Court to join them to the present proceedings as Interested Parties. 15.He ends his deposition by stating that the Plaintiff/Respondent and the Defendants/Respondents will not be prejudiced if they are joined to the suit. 16.Neither the Plaintiff/Respondent nor the 1st Defendant/Respondent filed a response to the application. Issues for Determination. 17.The Intended Interested Parties/Applicants filed submissions on 23rd February, 2026 while the Plaintiff/Respondent filed submissions on 11th April, 2026. 18.The Intended Interested Parties/Applicants submit that the Plaintiff/Respondent commenced the present proceedings vide the Plaint dated 5th March, 2020. 19.They also submit that the Defendants/Respondents filed a Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated 21st September, 2020. 20.The Intended Interested Parties/Applicants further submit that the matter was referred to Court annexed mediation and they were invited to participate. 21.It is their submissions that a partial agreement was arrived at but new issues arose which issues were referred to the Court for determination. 22.It is also their submissions that the partial mediation agreement was not conclusive but it was adopted as an order of this Court and it directly impacts them. 23.The Intended Interested Parties/Applicants reiterate the averments in the affidavit in support of the application and submit that they bought portions of land from Zephania Rop, Patrick Rop and Simon Rop. 24.The Intended Interested Parties/Applicants submit that the Plaintiff/Respondent drafted the land sale agreements that they entered into. 25.The Intended Interested Parties/Applicants also submit that they have filed their application in good faith and all the issues in dispute should be resolved once and for all. 26.The Intended Interested Parties/Applicants further submit that the Court delivered a ruling on 20th November, 2025 wherein it made it clear that the other issues that were not agreed upon would be subject to litigation. 27.It is their submissions that the Court was clear on the new issues that arose for determination and directed that the parties could seek leave to amend their pleadings if they deemed it appropriate. 28.It is also their submissions that it is in the interest of justice that they be joined to the present suit. 29.They conclude their submissions by urging the Court to allow their application as prayed. 30.The Plaintiff/Respondent submits that the Defendants/Respondents are his brothers and they are the sons of Kiprob Arap Chumo (Deceased). 31.The Plaintiff/Respondent also submits that Kiprob Arap Chumo (Deceased) was the initial registered owner of land parcel No. Kericho/Kabartegan/74. 32.The Plaintiff/Respondent further submits that in the year 1997, Kiprob Arap Chumo (Deceased) transferred the said parcel of land to the Defendants/Respondents to hold in trust for his six sons. 33.It is the Plaintiff/Respondent’s submissions that the said parcel of land was subdivided and some of the resultant subdivisions, that is land parcel No’s Kericho/Kabartegan/76 and 1134 were registered in the names of Stephen Rop and James Rop. 34.It is also the Plaintiff/Respondent’s submissions that that was the share for the first house. 35.It is further the Plaintiff/Respondent’s submissions that Stephen Rop and James Rop were holding the said parcels of land in trust for their siblings which parcels of land they subdivided and transferred to them. 36.The Plaintiff/Respondent submits that the Defendants/Respondents and him belong to the second house. 37.He also submits that land parcel No’s Kericho/Kabartegan/1013 and 1135 were registered in the name of the 1st Defendant/Respondent while land parcel No. Kericho/Kabartegan/1851 was registered in the name of the 2nd Defendant/Respondent. 38.He further submits that the said parcels of land were registered in the Defendants/Respondents names for them to hold in trust for the other siblings. 39.It is the Plaintiff/Respondent’s submissions that land parcel No. Kericho/Kabartegan/1852 was transferred by the 2nd Defendant/Respondent to the 2nd Intended Interested Party/Applicant. 40.It is also the Plaintiff/Respondent’s submissions that the Intended Interested Parties/Applicants are sons of the Defendants/Respondents. 41.It is further the Plaintiff/Respondent’s submissions that from the year 2005, they have requested the Defendants/Respondents to subdivide land parcel No. Kericho/Kabartegan/74 but they have refused and/or ignored to subdivide it. 42.The Plaintiff/Respondent submits that the 1st Intended Interested Party/Applicant filed Kericho CM ELC Case No. E031 of 2023 which suit was dismissed with costs. 43.The Plaintiff/Respondent also submits that the Defendants/Respondents filed a Preliminary Objection in the present proceedings which Preliminary Objection was dismissed on 6th July, 2023 with costs. 44.The Plaintiff/Respondent further submits that the suit was referred to Court Annexed Mediation and the parties entered into a Partial Mediation Agreement. 45.It is the Plaintiff/Respondent’s submissions that the 2nd Defendant/Respondent was to apply to the Bureti Land Control Board to get the consent to subdivide and transfer the land registered in his name. 46.It is also the Plaintiff/Respondent’s submissions that the only issue that is pending in Court is whether the 1st Defendant/Respondent should share the 1.25-acre parcel of land that is registered in his name with his siblings. 47.It is further the Plaintiff/Respondent’s submissions that several meetings have been held by the parties and their counsel to try and resolve the dispute. 48.The Plaintiff/Respondent submits that it was agreed that land parcel No’s Kericho/Kabartegan/1135, 103,1851 and 1852 were to be subdivided equally between him and the Defendants/Respondents herein. 49.The Plaintiff/Respondent also submits that it was agreed that land parcel No. Kericho/Kabartegan/1852 which measures 0.5 acres and is registered in the name of the 2nd Intended Interested Party/Applicant, would be deemed to be the portion of his father, the 2nd Defendant/Respondent. 50.The Plaintiff/Respondent further submits that they agreed that the 1st Intended Interested Party/Applicant would sue Zephaniah Rop who he alleges sold land to him. 51.It is the Plaintiff/Respondent’s submissions that they agreed that the Interested Parties/Applicants should not be joined to the present proceedings as their involvement will delay the implementation of the mediation agreement. 52.It is also the Plaintiff/Respondent’s submissions that the cause of action in the present suit relates to customary trust and therefore the Intended Interested Parties/Applicants should not be joined to the present proceedings. 53.It is further the Plaintiff/Respondent’s submissions that land parcel No’s 1133 and 1135 are held in trust and he together with the Defendants/Respondents are in possession of the said parcels of land. 54.The Plaintiff/Respondent reiterates that the Defendants/Respondents are holding the said parcels of land in trust and submits that any purported sale and/or transfer of the said land is invalid. 55.The Plaintiff/Respondent also submits that the Court has to make a determination on the following issues;a.The Intended Interested Parties/Applicants being children of the trustees of the parcels of land and under the land laws and decided Court cases guiding land held on trust, can the two individuals be made as Interested Parties? (sic)b.Costs of the application. 56.It is the Plaintiff/Respondent’s submissions that the application under consideration is an abuse of the Court process and it should be dismissed with costs. 57.It is also the Plaintiff/Respondent’s submissions that the Court should exercise its inherent powers and prevent the abuse of the Court process by the Defendants/Respondents and their sons, the Intended Interested Parties/Applicants. 58.The Plaintiff/Respondent relies on Article 45(1) of the Constitution of Kenya, the judicial decision of Francis Makokha Wabwile vs Titus Wabwile Sirengo [2022] eKLR and submits that the application under consideration is intended to waste the Court’s time and delay the conclusion of the suit. 59.It is further the Plaintiff/Respondent’s submissions that in the Statement of Defence and Counterclaim dated 21st September, 2020, the Defendants/Respondents state that land parcel No’s Kericho/Kabartegan/1133 and 1135 were transferred to their names to hold it in trust for their siblings. 60.The Plaintiff/Respondent reiterates that land parcel No. Kericho/Kabartegan/1133 was subdivided into land parcel No’s Kericho/Kabartegan/1851 and 1852. 61.The Plaintiff/Respondent submits that one of the resultant subdivisions was transferred to the 2nd Intended Interested Party/Applicant without their consent. 62.The Plaintiff/Respondent relies on the judicial decision of Oyoo vs Oyoo & 3 Others [2025]eKLR in support of his submissions. 63.The Plaintiff/Respondent also submits that during the Court Annexed Mediation, the 2nd Defendant/Respondent admitted to subdividing and transferring portions of the land that he was holding in trust for them. 64.The Plaintiff/Respondent further submits that he has proved the elements of trust and he should therefore be protected from being unjustly disinherited through the introduction of the Intended Interested Parties/Applicants. 65.It is the Plaintiff/Respondent’s submissions that he is seeking equity and relying on the Kipsigis customary land rights in urging the Court to focus on the Defendants/Respondents refusal to transfer the land that they are holding in trust for them. 66.The Plaintiff/Respondent relies on the judicial decisions of Maingi vs Maingi [2025] KECA 1426 (KLR) and Kimbo vs Kimbio [2025] eKLR in support of his submissions. 67.The Plaintiff/Respondent reiterates that the Defendants/Respondents are not holding land parcel No’s Kericho/Kabartegan/1133 & 1134 in trust for the Intended Interested Parties/Applicants. The Plaintiff/Respondent relies on the judicial decision of Isaac Kicha M’inanga vs Isaya Theuri M’lintari & another [2018]eKLR and the judicial decision of Muthuita vs Muthuita [1988]eKLR as was cited in Njenga Chogera vs Maria Wanjira Kimani & 3 Others [2005]eKLR in support of his submissions. 68.The Plaintiff/Respondent submits that the land sale agreement relied on by the 1st Intended Interested Party/Applicant and the title deed of land parcel No. Kericho/Kabartegan/1852 are void as the land was held in customary trust. 69.The Plaintiff/Respondent relies on Section 28 of the Land Registration Act and submits that the sale and/or transfer of the said parcels of land did not extinguish the customary trust. 70.The Plaintiff/Respondent concludes his submissions by urging the Court to dismiss the application and issue an order directing the Land Registrar to subdivide land parcel No’s 1851, 1852, 1135 & 1133 between Samwel Chumo, James Rop, Philiph Rop, Reuben Rop, David Rop, Zepeniah Rop and Patrick Rop as per the schedule he has given in his submissions. Analysis and Determination. 71.Having considered the Intended Interested Parties/Applicants application and the rival submissions, it is my view that the following issues arise for determination;a.Whether Gilbert Kimutai Ruto and Victor Kimutai Koech should be joined to the present proceedings as Interested Parties.b.Whether the Plaintiff/Respondent and the Defendants/Respondents should be ordered to serve Gilbert Kimutai Ruto and Victor Kimutai Koech with the pleadings filed in the present suit.c.Whether Gilbert Kimutai Ruto and Victor Kimutai Ruto should be granted leave to file responses to the pleadings filed in the present proceedings.d.Who should bear costs of the application. A. Whether Gilbert Kimutai Ruto and Victor Kimutai Koech should be joined to the present proceedings as Interested Parties. 72.The Intended Interested Parties/Applicants submit that they purchased land from Zephaniah Rop, Patrick Rop and Simon Rop. 73.The Intended Interested Parties/Applicants contend that any decision the Court makes will directly affect them. 74.The Intended Interested Parties/Applicants also contend that it will be prudent for them to be joined to the suit. 75.The Plaintiff/Respondent submits that the Defendants/Respondents were registered as the owners of land parcel No’s Kericho/Kabartegan/1133 and 1135 to hold in trust for them and their siblings. 76.The Plaintiff/Respondent also submits that the Defendants/Respondents subdivided land parcel No. Kericho/Kabartegan/1133 into land parcel No’s Kericho/Kabartegan/1851 and 1852. 77.The Plaintiff/Respondent further submits that one of the resultant subdivisions of the said parcel of land was registered in the name of the 2nd Intended Interested Party/Applicant. 78.It is the Plaintiff/Respondent’s submissions that the said parcels of land were held in trust and any alleged subdivision and transfer is void. 79.It is also the Plaintiff/Respondent’s submissions that the parties were referred to Court Annexed Mediation wherein they entered into a partial mediation agreement. 80.It is further the Plaintiff/Respondent’s submissions that the joinder of the Intended Interested Parties will interfere with the implementation of the Partial Mediation agreement. 81.Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides as follows:-“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 or settle all questions involved in the suit, be added.” (Emphasis mine) 82.The Supreme Court in Francis K. Muruatetu and another v. Republic & 5 others [2016] eKLR set out the following elements the Court has to consider when determining an application for joinder of an Interested Party;“a.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.b.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.c.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.” (Emphasis mine) 83.In the judicial decision of Skov Estate Limited & 5 others v Agricultural Development Corporation & another [2015] eKLR the Court held 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.” 84.As was held in the above cited judicial decisions, the Court in determining whether to join a proposed Interested Party to a suit must consider the stake the said party has in the suit, the prejudice they are likely to suffer and the case they intend to make before the Court and also demonstrate that the case they intend to make is not replication of the case made by the other parties. 85.The Intended Interested Parties/Applicant contend that they purchased various portions of land. 86.Among the documents attached to the affidavit in support of the application are hand written copies of agreements dated 2nd January, 2005, 6th January, 2005, 8th December, 2008 and 25th April, 2020. 87.The agreement dated 2nd January, 2005 is titled “Agreement Title No. 1135”. The agreement is between Nancy Rop and Gilbert Kimutai Rutto. It states that as follows;“The above has paid Kshs. Two Hundred and Seventy Thousand (270,000/=) to Patrick Kiprotich Rop Id No. 13021228 to go and buy 1 acre of land in Tulwet Loc Kaproret Sub Loc. Kshs. 10,000/= will be paid by Samwel Rop.”(sic) 88.It is signed and witnessed by twelve persons. 89.The agreement dated 6th January, 2005 is titled “Land Purchase Agreement Between Rusi Chepkemoi Sirma and Patrick Rop Kericho/Getarwet LR No. 40”. The agreement is between Rusi Chepkemoi Sirma (vendor) and Patrick K. Rop (Purchaser). The purchase price is stated to be Kshs. 125,000/=. The agreement states that a deposit of Kshs. 100,000/= was paid while the balance of Kshs. 25,000/= was to be paid later. The agreement is witnessed by ten persons. 90.The agreement dated 8th December, 2008 is titled “Agreement between Mr. Zephaniah Rop versus Gilbert Ruto & Philip Rop. Title No. 1133 Registered in the name of Reuben Rop.” The agreement states as follows;“The family of Philip Chumo has given an okay to Mr & Mrs Zephaniah Rop to sell part of his portion of land of 0.5 an acre at the cost of 300,000/= to Mr. Gilbert Ruto. (sic) The amount paid in the presence of family members on 8th/12/200 (sic) is 275,000/=. The remaining balance will be cleared on 5the June, 2009…” 91.The agreement is witnessed by eight persons. 92.The agreement dated 25th April, 2020 is between Simon Kiplangat Rop (Vendor) and Victor Kimutai Koech (purchaser). The agreement is for the sale of a portion of land parcel No. Kericho/Kabartegan/1851 measuring 0.1 acres at a consideration of Kshs. 150,000/=. The agreement is signed by the vendor, purchaser and three witnesses. 93.It is important to note that the Intended Interested Parties/Applicants did not disclose the particulars of the land that they allegedly purchased. 94.In the attached land sale agreement dated 2nd January, 2005, it is not clear who the vendor and/or purchaser is. 95.From the attached land sale agreement dated 25th April, 2020, it is apparent that 2nd Intended Interested Party/Applicant allegedly purchased a portion of land parcel No. Kericho/Kabartegan/1851. It is also apparent that the vendor in the said agreement, one Simon Kiplangat Rop is not a party to the present proceedings. 96.It is also important to note that the vendor in the land sale agreement dated 6th January, 2005, one Rusi Chepkemoi Sirma is also not a party to the present proceedings. 97.The Intended Interested Parties/Applicants submit that they participated in the Court Annexed Mediation and new issues arose which issues were referred to Court. 98.They have attached a copy of the Partial Mediation Agreement dated 24th February, 2023 wherein the following issues were referred back to Court for determination;“a.The sale agreement between Zephania Rop and Gilbert Rutto of 0.5 acres. (sic)b.The sale agreement between Simion Rop and Victor Koech of 0.1 acres. (sic)c.Land parcel Kericho/Kabartegan/1013 registered in the name of Samwel Kipkemoi Chumo. (sic)” 99.Even though the Intended Interested Parties/Applicants are mentioned in the Partial Settlement Agreement, it is my view that they have failed to demonstrate that they have a stake in the present suit and/or how their presence will assist this Court in the determination of the issues in dispute. 100.The Intended Interested Parties/Applicants have also failed to set out the prejudice they are likely to suffer if they are not joined to the suit. 101.In view of the foregoing, I decline to join the Intended Interested Parties/Applicants to this suit. B. Whether the Plaintiff/Respondent and the Defendants/Respondents should be ordered to serve Gilbert Kimutai Ruto and Victor Kimutai Koech with the pleadings filed in the present suit. 102.This issue answers prayer (3) of the application under consideration. 103.Given my finding on issue (A) above, the said prayer cannot be granted. C. Whether Gilbert Kimutai Ruto and Victor Kimutai Ruto should be granted leave to file responses to the pleadings filed in the present proceedings. 104.This issue answers prayer (4) of the application under consideration. 105.Given my finding on issue (A) above, the said prayer cannot be granted. D. Who should bear costs of the application. 106.The general rule is that costs shall follow the event. This is in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21). 107.A successful party should ordinarily be awarded costs of an action unless the Court, for good reason, directs otherwise. Disposition. 108.Taking the foregoing into consideration, I find that the Intended Interested Parties/Applicants Notice of Motion application dated 10th November, 2023 lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs. 109.It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KERICHO THIS 4TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.L. A. OMOLLOJUDGE.In the presence of: -Mr. Bii for the Intended Interested Parties/Applicants.Miss Chebet for the Plaintiff/Respondent.Court Assistant: Mr. Joseph Makori