https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2998

Ndirangu & 2 others v Nyeri & another; Satima Peak Farmers & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2998 (KLR) (13 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 2998 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nyeri Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E014 of 2025 EK Makori, J May 13, 2026 Between Joyce Waitherero Ndirangu 1st Applicant Stephen Symon Gatende 2nd Applicant Michael Mutero Marine 3rd Applicant and The Land Registrar Nyeri 1st Respondent District Surveyor Nyeri 2nd Respondent and Satima Peak Farmers Interested Party Jonathan Kimari Waruingi Interested Party Ruling 1.There are 2 applications pending determination herein. The first is an application under Notice of Motion dated 23rd July 2025 seeking the following orders:a.Spentb.THAT there be a stay of execution of the order dated 11th June 2025 pending the hearing and determination of this application.c.THAT leave be granted to Godfrey Wachira Muiga and Jonathan Kimari Waruingi to be enjoined as interested parties herein.d.THAT leave serves as a stay of execution of the order dated 11th June 2025 pending the hearing and determination of this application.e.THAT the Honourable Court be pleased to order that the Applicant be served with the application dated 4th March 2025 and be allowed to file a response.f.THAT the costs of this application be provided for. 2.The Application is supported by the affidavit of Godfrey Wachira Muiga, the 1st Applicant and intended interested party, who deposed that on June 22, 2025, they learned of a court order dated June 11, 2025, authorizing the survey of Land Title numbers Mwiyogo/Labura/Block II/211, 208, 3, and Mukoe/209. 3.According to him, they are the actual occupants of the said land parcels, so they were shocked to learn that they were never involved. 4.That the Ministry of Lands purported to close the registers of LR 3381, the mother title to the suit lands, issue a new block number (Mwitogo/Labura Block 2 (Mukoe)), and have it subdivided into 198 parcels. 5.The Applicant deposed that the subdivision process did not materialize because of an ongoing case, HCCC 62 of 1985, involving the mother title to the suit property, LR.3381. Upon final determination, the respondents in that case rushed to the land office to process titles based on the letter dated 11th December 1992, which includes the suit land herein. 6.The processing of these titles occurred before the hearing of the appeal from this decision, Civil Appeal 18 of 2010, which was ultimately determined in 2014. The judgment ordering the processing of the 198 suit titles was set aside, rendering any action based on it nugatory. 7.His claim, together with his co-applicant's, is that they were born and raised on LR.3381 and have lived and settled on the said parcel for over 40 years. 8.They are fearful that if the survey is allowed as per the order dated 11th June 2025 and if the stay of execution thereof is not granted, they shall be evicted without a chance to be heard as justice requires. 9.The second application is dated 7th September 2025, seeking the following orders:a.Spentb.THAT there be a stay of execution of the order dated 11th June 2025 pending the hearing and determination of this application.c.THAT leave be granted to the intended interested parties, Satima Peak Farmers and Jonathan Kimari Waruingi, to be joined as interested parties herein.d.THAT the Honorable Court be pleased to order that the Applicant be served with the application dated March 4, 2025, and be allowed to file a response.e.THAT the costs of this application be provided for. 10.The Application is supported by the affidavit of Stephen Muriithi Wachira, the current chairman of Satima Peak Farmers, the 1st intended interested party. He deposed that on the 9th of September 2025, they learned of a court order dated 11th June 2025, issued by the area chief, authorizing the surveying of Land Title Numbers Mwiyogo/Labura/Block II/211, 208, 3, and Mukoe/209. The area chief informed them that the surveying exercise is scheduled for the 19th of September 2025. 11.The Applicant/ intended interested party stated that this came as a shock because they are the actual occupants of the property in the suit, but were not involved in the suit. 12.The Applicant also noted that there was a case known as HCCC 62 of 1985, involving the mother title to the suit property LR.3381, which was to be subdivided into 198 titles but did not proceed due to the case. Upon final determination, the respondents in that case rushed to the lands office to process titles based on the letter dated 11th December 1992, which includes the suit land herein. 13.The processing of these titles is pending the hearing of the appeal preferred from this decision, Civil Appeal 18 of 2010, which set aside the judgment delivered on 22nd July 2009, among other orders, and directed that anyone with a claim over LR.3381 should file a fresh suit. 14.According to the Applicant, this means that any action based on the High Court's judgment in that case has been rendered nugatory. 15.His claim to the suit property is that he and the 2nd Applicant were born and raised on the mother title land LR.3381 and have lived and settled there for over 40 years. They are apprehensive that they will be evicted without a chance to be heard if their prayers for a stay and for being joined to the suit are not granted. The Applicants/Respondents’ replying affidavit 16.The Applicants/Respondents herein swore a joint reply affidavit to the instant application. They deposed that the 2nd Respondent is one of the administrators of the estate of the late Joy, alias Joyce Wangui Gatende, the registered owner of Mwiyogo/Labura/Block II/Mukoe/209. 17.Further, the 3rd Respondent holds a power of attorney granted by Jane Wairimu Marine, the registered proprietor of Mwiyogo/Labura/Block11/3, which was originally registered in their father’s name, John Wagura Marine, before his estate devolved. 18.They contend that the legality of the title deeds has never been challenged in court for over 32 years, and that the 1st intended interested party was the Plaintiff in Nyeri ELC 80 of 2015, who declined to participate in the proceedings until the suit abated on 27th December 2023, following the death of the 3rd defendant. 19.They acknowledged the existence of HCCC 62 of 1985 and civil appeal 18 of 2010, in which they depose that a retrial was ordered, which gave rise to the aforesaid Nyeri ELC 80 of 2015, in which all the defendants became deceased. The suit abated after the death of the 3rd defendant on 29th October 2024. 20.On 26 September 2023, the 2nd intended interested party herein, together with others, filed an application seeking to stay the eviction orders against him in ELCA 360 of 2019 and to be joined as an interested party in Nyeri ELC 80 of 2015. The application was replied to, and Olola J. advised their counsel to reconsider it, as it was not possible to join a suit that had abated. The application to be joined was dismissed, and the suit was declared to have abated on 29 October 2024. 21.That before these applications, the 2nd Applicant herein already had eviction orders issued against it by Olola J. in ELC Appeal 36/2019, an appeal from Nyeri CMELC 78/2018. They contend that the 2nd Applicant seeks to have this Court sit on appeal from its own decision delivered on 27th April, 2023, 2 years ago. 22.That the title deeds were issued after the suits and have never been challenged in any court of law for over 15 years, an area list was prepared and R.I.M by the relevant authorities. 23.That the 1st intended interested party had an opportunity to be heard in ELC 80 of 2015 but failed to exercise that opportunity for over 9 years until the suit abated in 2024. 24.Further, the deponent of the 1st interested party is a stranger, as he is not one of the Directors of Satima, according to the records held at the Registrar of Companies as of 2nd September, 2021. 25.They contend that the 2nd intended interested party cannot claim that he risks being evicted from the Respondents’ parcels of land, given that there is already an eviction order on other parcels of land that are different from the Respondents’ four parcels, and that he has no legitimate claim over the suit parcels of land. 26.They also filed a further affidavit, sworn on February 13, 2026, deposing that during the mention of this matter before the Honorable Court, it was noted that the copies of the Title Deeds annexed to the Application could not be found in the Court record, and that they now annex fresh copies of the respective Title Deeds and Official Searches in respect of the suit properties to ensure that the Court record is complete. The Applicants in the Application Dated 23rd July, 2025, Written Submissions 27.Counsel for the Applicants in the Notice of Motion dated 23rd July, 2025, filed written submissions, relying on the criteria for joinder to a suit set out in the authority of Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu & 5 others (2014) eKLR. They submit that the applicants are long-term occupants of LR. 3381, the mother title from which the suit titles are derived. 28.They added that they were parties to Nyeri ELC 80 of 2015 regarding the same land, and thus their interest is direct and legally cognizable. 29.Secondly, they submit that the initial application leading to the order of June 11, 2025, concealed that this matter had been in dispute for a long time and was the subject of HCCC 62 of 1985, Civil Appeal No. 18 of 2010, and ELC 80 of 2015. 30.Third, they submit that the proceedings herein were initiated by a Notice of Motion rather than a substantive suit, contrary to Order 3 Rule 1 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and argue that the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction cannot be invoked in a vacuum where there is no substantive cause of action. On this point, they rely on the authority of Republic v County Government of Kiambu ex parte Robert Gakuru (2016) eKLR. 31.On stay, Counsel relied on the provisions of Order 42 rule 6(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules, submitting that the Court has inherent jurisdiction to grant a stay to preserve the subject matter pending hearing. 32.The Applicants contend that they stand to suffer irreparable harm in the form of eviction from their ancestral land and pray for the Court’s protection pending the hearing and determination of the main application herein. The Applicants in the Application Dated 7th September 2025 Written Submissions 33.The Applicants in the application dated 7th September, 2025, also filed written submissions, reiterating that the order of 11th June 2025 was obtained through concealment of material facts, failed to attach copies of the suit titles, and failed to include that the suit property in the registry index map of 1992 was issued to several individuals, including the 1st intended interested party. 34.Their submission is that they have demonstrated sufficient interest in the suit because they are long-term occupants of the suit property and were parties to Nyeri ELC 80 of 2015 concerning the same land. Thus, their interest is direct and legally cognizable. They relied on the case of Republic v. Minister for Transport & Communication & 5 others ex parte Waa Ship Garbage Collector & 15 others (2006) 1 KLR (E&L) 563. 35.Further, the interested parties argue that before the allocation of the unalienated government land, there ought to have been prior processes followed.a.African Line Transport Co. Ltd v Attorney General Mombasa HCCC No.276 of 2003(2007) eKLRb.Funzi Development Ltd & others v County Council of Kwale, Monbasa Civil Appeal No.252 of 2005(2014) eKLRc.Dina Management Ltd v Count Government of Mombasa & 5 others (2023) KESC 30(KLR) 36.It is also submitted that the proceedings herein were initiated by a Notice of Motion rather than a substantive suit, contrary to Order 3 Rule 1 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and that the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction cannot be invoked in a vacuum where there is no substantive cause of action. On this point, they relied on the authority of Republic v County Government of Kiambu ex parte Robert Gakuru (2016) eKLR. The 1st -3rd Applicants/Respondents Submissions in the Applications 37.Counsel for the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents submitted that, regarding the legitimacy of the Title Deeds issued to the 1st - 3rd applicants/respondents herein, Section 26 of the Land Registration Act provides that a Certificate of Title is conclusive evidence of proprietorship, except in cases of fraud or where the title has been acquired illegally. They contend that the said Certificates of Official Searches show no restriction or encumbrance of any nature, either by the intended interested parties herein or by any other person, noting that the intended interested parties were also parties to the previous cases and did not successfully challenge their titles. 38.They also submit that they wrote a letter to the Land Registrar dated 20th December, 2024, seeking registration of a boundary dispute regarding their respective parcels, which neighbor each other. The Land Registrar forwarded the letter to the county surveyor, who advised that an application be made to the court for security. That advice led to the filing of the application before the court as a miscellaneous application, which they contend is the proper form of instituting the application. 39.Counsel concluded that the intended interested parties herein have not disclosed what interest they have in the parcels of land in question, except that they are in occupation of the parcels. Counsel characterized their applications as unmerited and prayed that they be dismissed with costs. Analysis and Determination 40.The Applicants in the instant applications have filed almost identical applications, seeking to be joined to this matter. They claim that the intended surveying of Land Title Numbers Mwiyogo/Labura/Block II/211, 208, 3 & Mukoe/209 will affect their interests as occupants of the suit properties, where they were born and raised and have lived for over forty years. The rules governing the joinder of a party are set out in Order 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. Order 1(10) provides that:“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.” 41.The Black's Law Dictionary defines an “interested party” as "A party who has a recognizable stake (and therefore standing) in the matter." It also defines a “Necessary Party” as “a party who being closely connected to a lawsuit should be included in the case if feasible but whose absence will not require dismissal of proceedings.” An interested party is someone identified as directly affected by the case. 42.The Applicants have relied on the holding in the Supreme Court in the case of Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Matemo & 5 others (Petition 12 of 2013) [2014] KESC 32 (KLR)“Consequently, 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.” 43.The apex Court summarized the criteria to join a party in the case of Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 others [2014] eKLR:“In the case of Meme v. Republic, [2004] 1 EA 124, the High Court observed that a party could be enjoined in a matter for the reasons that:“(i)Joinder of a person because his presence will result in the complete settlement of all the questions involved in the proceedings;(ii)joinder to provide protection for the rights of a party who would otherwise be adversely affected in law;(iii)joinder to prevent a likely course of proliferated litigation.”We ask ourselves the following questions: (a) what is the intended interested party’s stake and relevance in the proceedings? and (b) will the intended interested party suffer any prejudice if denied joinder?” 44.The Applicants have argued that their identifiable stake is an interest in the suit properties, which emanated from the mother title LR.3381. From the documents annexed to the Applicants' applications, it appears that the Applicants in the application dated 23rd July 2025 also sought to be interested parties in ELC 80 of 2015. They claimed an interest in the inheritance of the suit land and stated that some of their parents were members of Satima Peak Farmers, the 1st applicant in the application dated 7th September 2025. 45.The Satima Peak Farmers organization was also the Appellant in Civil Appeal 18 of 2012, which arose from HCCC 62 of 1985, where it was held that they had an overriding interest in the suit property, but the court declined to determine the acreage of the parties after noting that other parties were not involved in the suit. 46.In my view, this amounts to having a stake in the proceedings, as they will be affected by the decision of the Court when it is made, as elaborated in the authorities cited above, as they will suffer prejudice if they are not heard. Therefore, the plea for joinder is allowed 47.However, I note that this is only a boundaries dispute application filed to call upon the Land Registrar to determine the boundaries of the suit properties, and that issues of disputed ownership are best canvassed in a main suit. Only the Land Registrar has the mandate to determine boundaries, and that is the only matter at hand herein. Section 18 of the Land Registration Act, Cap 300, provides that:1.“Except where, in accordance with section 20, it is noted in the register that the boundaries of a parcel have been fixed, the cadastral map and any filed plan shall be deemed to indicate the approximate boundaries and the approximate situation only of the parcel 2.The court shall not entertain any action or other proceedings relating to a dispute as to the boundaries of registered land unless the boundaries have been determined in accordance with this section. 3.Except where, it is noted in the register that the boundaries of a parcel have been fixed, the Registrar may, in any proceedings concerning the parcel, receive such evidence as to its boundaries and situation as may be necessary.” 48.Therefore, there is little need to stay the orders of this Court to proceed with the boundary determination, which can proceed with the intended interested parties present so they can challenge the outcome of the exercise. 49.Therefore, the applications were successful as described above, with no order as to costs. CCONCLUSIONS RULING DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED AT NYERI THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY 2026.____________________________E. K. MAKORIJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms. Ndiangui for the RespondentKendi: Court AssistantIn the absence of:Mr.Muchangi & Kimathi for the Applicants