https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3128

Muigai & 5 others v Attorney General For: Commissioner of Lands & another; Amboseli Court Limited & 13 others (Interested Parties); Falcon Kenya Limited (Proposed Interested Party) (Environment and Land Petition 47 of 2011) [2026] KEELC 3128 (KLR) (21 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3128 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi Environment and Land Petition 47 of 2011 CA Ochieng, J May 21, 2026 Between Abdulahi Muiruri Muigai 1st Petitioner Raymond Mwangi Waweru 2nd Petitioner Kariuki Njoroge 3rd Petitioner Peter Kerumbi Keingati 4th Petitioner Joseph Nduati Ng’Endo 5th Petitioner Kiambu Dandora Farmers Company Limited 6th Petitioner and The Hon Attorney General For: Commissioner of Lands 1st Respondent The National Land Commission 2nd Respondent and Amboseli Court Limited Interested Party Virgin Court Limited Interested Party Soduku Estates Limited Interested Party John Gakuu Githae Interested Party Viscount Holdings Limited Interested Party Umoja III Estate Residents Association Interested Party U-Haul Vehicle Hire Limited Interested Party Nairobi Bottlers Limited Interested Party Emco Billets & Steel Limited Interested Party Steel Structures Limited Interested Party Freesoan Construction Limited Interested Party City County Of Nairobi Interested Party Kamba Manufacturing Limited Interested Party Schemes Limited Interested Party and Falcon Kenya Limited Proposed Interested Party Ruling 1.What is before the Court for determination is the Proposed Interested Party’s Notice of Motion application dated the 5th December 2025, where it seeks the following orders:a.Spent.b.That this Honourable court be pleased to grant leave to Falcon Kenya Limited to be enjoined as an Interested Party (and/or as a 2nd Respondent) being a necessary and proper party for the effectual and complete adjudication of all the issues in dispute in this suit.c.That upon granting of the above leave, the Interested Party/Applicant be granted leave to file such pleadings, affidavits and/or cross-petition and submissions as may be necessary for the just determination of this Constitutional petition.d.That the Honourable court be pleased to make such further or other orders as it may deem just and expedient in the circumstances of this case.e.That costs of this application be provided for. 2.The application is premised on grounds on its face and on the supporting affidavit of Samuel Mwaura Waweru, the proposed Interested Party’s Managing Director. He provided the history of LR No. 11379/3, in order to demonstrate the proposed Interested Party’s interest in the land. He explains that it was originally purchased from one Khan in 1968 by two hundred and twenty five (225) members who intended to form a company to register the said land. He claims that seven (7) out of the said two hundred and twenty five (225) members were appointed as leaders and given a mandate to incorporate a company to pursue a transfer from the said Khan. He avers that since incorporation of the said company was taking rather long, the firm of Waruhiu & Company Advocates and that of SM Otieno Advocates facilitated the transfer of the suit land to the 6th Petitioner as trustees of the said two hundred and twenty five (225) members and thereafter a transfer was effected from Mr. Khan to the 6th Petitioner as trustee. 3.He asserts that in August 1981, the two hundred and twenty five (225) members finally registered the 14th Interested Party with a view to take over the land from the 6th Petitioner and subdivide it to members. However, trustees of the 6th Petitioner allegedly failed to transfer the said land to the 14th Interested Party. 4.He reiterates that subsequently, the 14th Interested Party sued the 6th Petitioner vide HCCC No. 1348 of 1972, for enforcement of the transfer and in the same year (1972), the Commissioner of Lands began a private deal to purchase the suit property from the 6th petitioner. Further, in 1974, despite objections from the 14th Interested Party, the Commissioner of Lands initiated a compulsory acquisition process on the basis that the 14th Interested Party could not be able to develop the suit land to the required standards. 5.He contends that in 1978, the Commissioner of Lands embarked on alienation of the suit land to private developers contrary to the rules on compulsory acquisition. Further, at the same time, the 14th Interested party approached the proposed Interested Party and appointed it financiers and recovery agents with absolute mandate to act on their behalf. 6.He states that the proposed Interested Party assisted in reviving HCCC No. 1348 of 1972, which was referred to arbitration. Further, that the Arbitration Award and subsequent Court Orders vested ownership of the suit land in the 14th Interested party but the Lands Department declined to register the resultant decree and claimed that the land was government property. 7.He argues that having settled the issue of ownership, the 14th Interested party filed HCCC No. 1555 OF 1984 against the 1st Respondent herein, challenging the process of compulsory acquisition of the suit land. He further claims that the 1st Respondent executed an agreement with the proposed Interested Party, giving it authority to source for developers to put up houses on the suit land. However, in 1987, officials of the 6th Petitioner developed what is today known as Umoja II estate on the suit land. 8.He avers that in 1993, the 14th Interested Party went to Court to enforce the Decree in HCCC No. 1348 of 1972 and after establishing that all its trustees were deceased, a transfer was effected to the proposed Interested Party for purposes of safeguarding the interests of the 14th Interested Party. 9.He asserts that the proposed Interested Party then registered a Charge against the suit property in 1998 and in 2011, it prepared a Discharge of Charge but its title lodged in the normal course of registering a Discharge has not been returned to date thus it has a substantial interest in the suit land and has its own independent claim that will be adversely affected, if it is not heard in these proceedings. 10.He also contends that there is an active dispute over the ownership of the suit property, being ELC Petition No. 614 of 2013 where the proposed Interested Party seeks the return of the original title deed of the suit land wrongfully withheld by the Chief Land Registrar and that the proposed Interested party was not served with pleadings in this Petition despite the petitioners being aware of its long-standing claim. 11.The application was not opposed by any party except the 6th Petitioner. Response 12.The application is opposed by the 6th Petitioner, vide the replying affidavit sworn by its director, one Joseph Mwangi Karanja. He contends that the proposed Interested party has failed to demonstrate any proximate, identifiable and legally protectable interest in the subject matter herein, because his claim over the suit property is contested in ELC Petition No. 614 of 2013(Falcon (k) Limited v Chief Land Registrar & others. 13.Further, that the issues sought to be introduced concern alleged ownership rights, historical transfers, decrees and proprietary interests, which substantially differ from the issues herein which challenge the legality of the compulsory process undertaken over the suit land thus the Proposed Interested Party intends to convert the instant suit into a forum for determination of contested ownership claims. 14.He also asserts that the proposed Interested Party does not demonstrate how its participation is necessary for effectual adjudication of the suit, that it has not demonstrated any prejudice it is likely to suffer and has not explained the inordinate delay in filing its application, the Petition having been pending since 2011. He further alleges that joinder shall occasion unnecessary delay in expeditious disposal of the matter since the suit has substantially progressed and some witnesses have testified. Submissions 15.The Proposed Interested Party reiterates that it has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the suit, having demonstrated ownership of the suit land, historical possession and ongoing litigation, thus its participation is necessary as it will assist the Court to reach a just, comprehensive merit based decision. Further, that it has met the threshold for joinder and no prejudice will be occasioned to the parties herein. It further submits that a hearing without its participation will infringe on its right to hearing under Article 50 (1) of the Constitution. 16.To buttress its averments, the proposed Interested Party relied on the following decisions: Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu & 5 others [2014] eKLR; Francis Karioki Muruatetu & another v Republic & 5 others [2016] eKLR; Communications Commission of Kenya & 4 others v Royal Media Services Ltd & 7 others [2014] eKLR; Pshito Holding and another v Paul Nderitu Ndungu & 2 others [1997] eKLR, among others which the Court has carefully considered. Analysis and Determination 17.I have considered the instant Notice of Motion application including the respective affidavits as well as submissions and the only issue for determination is whether the proposed Interested Party has met the threshold for joinder as an Interested Party /Respondent. 18.The proposed Interested Party has sought for joinder to this Petition on the basis that it has proprietary interest over the suit land, thus it has a stake in the matter and a hearing in its absence would be a breach to its right to hearing. It further sought to be allowed to file pleadings in this matter. The 6th Petitioner opposed the instant application and insisted that the Applicant has not demonstrated proximity to the subject matter. Further, that no prejudice will be suffered if its application for joinder is declined and further the delay in filing the instant application is not explained. 19.In Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu & 5 Others [2014] eKLR, the Court defined an Interested Party as:“...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...” 20.In Meme v. Republic [2004] KLR cited by the Court of Appeal in Pravin Bowry v John Ward and Another [2015] eKLR, it was held that joinder of parties will be permissible:“(i)Where the presence of the party will result in the complete settlement of all the questions involved in the proceedings; (ii) Where the joinder will provide protection for the rights of a party who would otherwise be adversely affected in law: and (iii) Where the joinder will prevent a likely course of proliferated litigation.” 21.See also the case of Departed Asians Property Custodian Board vs. Jaffer Brothers Ltd [1999] 1 EA 55. 22.On perusal of the pleadings herein including documents filed, I note the proposed Interested Party has actually provided a background of the suit land and its connection with it. Further, it stated that it was not involved in this Petition but it has filed a related suit claiming the suit property. From the facts before me, I opine that since the intended Interested Party highlighted the alleged history of the suit land and claims proprietary rights over it, its involvement in these proceedings is necessary to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon as well as settle all questions involved in the suit. Further, this will also avoid a multiplicity of suits. 23.Based on the facts as presented while associating myself with the cited decisions, it is my considered view that the proposed Interested Party will also be affected by any decision emanating from this suit. 24.It is against the foregoing that I find the Notice of Motion application dated the 5th December, 2025 merited and will allow it, in the following terms:a.That Falcon Kenya Limited be and is hereby joined as the 15th Interested Party.b.That the 15th Interested Party is hereby granted leave of twenty one (21) days, to file and serve its pleadings, as may be necessary for the just determination of this Constitutional Petition.c.Costs will be in the cause. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 21ST DAY OF MAY, 2026CHRISTINE OCHIENGJUDGEIn the presence of:Namada and Murunga for 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th PetitionerWere for 5th PetitionerMs Karita holding brief for CN Kihara for Interested PartyAllan Kamau for 1st RespondentMbuthia for 2nd RespondentWakwaya for 8th, 10th and 11th Interested PartyKemunto for 12th Interested PartyWachira for 5th Interested PartyOmuga for 9th Interested PartyCourt Assistant: Catherine