https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3691

Mugambi & Mugambi (Suing as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of the Late Raphael Mugambi - Deceased) & 3 others v Opiyo & 19 others (Environment and Land Case E018 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 3691 (KLR) (16 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3691 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Meru Environment and Land Case E018 of 2022 BM Eboso, J June 16, 2026 Between Cecilia Nyoroka Mugambi & Lucy Karimi Mugambi (Suing as the Legal Representatives of the Estate of the Late Raphael Mugambi - Deceased) 1st Plaintiff Felicity Kanana Maingi (Suing as the Legal Representative of the estate of the late Francis Maingi - Deceased) 2nd Plaintiff Silas Mwobobia Mbui 3rd Plaintiff Sebastian Ngare Muguongo 4th Plaintiff and Andrew Odero Opiyo 1st Defendant Shadrack Mwiti Muguna 2nd Defendant Joseph Munyua Muriuki 3rd Defendant Lawrence Kiautha Arithi 4th Defendant Zipporah K. Kiautha 5th Defendant Joram Gichinga Kamencu 6th Defendant Isaac Kaimenyi 7th Defendant Samuel Kathurima Ringera 8th Defendant Janet Mukiri Mwenda 9th Defendant Solutions Sacco Society Ltd 10th Defendant Credit Bank Limited 11th Defendant The County Government of Meru 12th Defendant Land Registrar, Meru County 13th Defendant The Hon Attorney General 14th Defendant Jason Mwenda Mathiu 15th Defendant Eye Friends Care Limited 16th Defendant Ramesh Chandra Samat 17th Defendant Ankit Ramesh Chandra 18th Defendant I & M Bank Limited 19th Defendant Elizabeth Kaliuntu Angaine 20th Defendant Ruling 1.Through the application dated 30/5/2026, M/s I & M Bank Ltd seek an order removing them from this suit. They also seek an order providing for their costs. The application is supported by the affidavit of Joshua Gitonga Ngari dated 30/5/2026. 2.None of the parties filed a response to the application. None opposed the application. However, the plaintiff emphasized that the Bank should bear its costs because it failed to discharge the title. On their part, the 17th and 18th defendants submitted that the plaintiff should bear the Bank’s costs. It was the Bank’s case that the 17th and 18th defendants should bear the Bank’s costs. 3.The court has considered the application. The first limb of the application is not contested. The only contest is on the issue of the Bank’s costs. The Bank was joined as a party to this case because the relevant land register bore a charge in its favour. The entry relating to the charge in favour of the 19th defendant remained in the land register because the chargors [the 17th, 18th defendant] and the chargee [the Bank] failed to cause a discharge to be registered. 4.The 19th defendant articulated its position vide the supporting affidavit of Joshua Gitonga Ngari dated 30/5/2026 and the oral submissions of Mr Mahinda. The 17th and 18th defendants elected to say nothing on who was responsible for the continued subsistence of the entry in the encumbrances section of the register. In the circumstances, the court agrees with the submissions of Mr Mahinda that the proper parties to bear costs of the 19th defendant are the 17th and 18the defendants. This view is informed by the fact that it was the responsibility of the duo to repay the loan, draw a discharge of charge, present the discharge of charge to the Bank for execution by the Bank and cause the discharge of charge to be registered. If they did so, they did not present that evidence. They will, in the circumstances, bear the 19th defendant’s costs. 5.In the end, the notice of motion dated 30/5/2026 is disposed in the following terms:(a)M/s I & M Bank Limited [the 19th defendant] are hereby removed from this suit.(b)Costs of the 19th defendant shall be borne by the 17th and 18th defendants. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026.B M EBOSO [MR]ELC JUDGE