https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4103

Republic v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government & 3 others; Beneficiaries of the Mwea Settlement Scheme through their appointed Leaders (Ex parte) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4103 (KLR) (30 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4103 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Embu Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E001 of 2023 A Kaniaru, J June 30, 2026 Between Republic Applicant and The Cabinet Secretary, Ministry Of Interior And Coordination Of National Government 1st Respondent The Embu County Commissioner 2nd Respondent The Attorney General 3rd Respondent and Shadrack Maingi Kilonzo & 7487 Intended Interested Party and The Beneficiaries of the Mwea Settlement Scheme through their appointed Leaders Joseph Munyi (Chiarman) Francis Ndwiga (Treasurer) Ben Kanyeji (Secretary) Ex parte Ruling 1.The application before me for determination is a notice of motion application dated 09.05.2024 and filed on 24.04.2024. It is expressed to be brought under Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010. The Applicants are Shadrack Maingi Kilonzo and 7487 others. They are seeking leave to be joined in the proceedings as interested parties. 2.The application is premised on the grounds set out on its face and on the supporting affidavit sworn on 09.05.2024 by Shadrack Maingi Kilonzo on his own behalf and on behalf of the 7487 parties who are all said to be the occupants of the Mwea Settlement Scheme. He deposed that it had come to their attention that there was a suit in existence which sought to displace them. That suit is the one herein. He stated that they ought to be joined in the proceedings to inform the Court of the correct legal position. He avers that the Applicants are not legitimate beneficiaries of the Mwea Settlement Scheme. He maintained that the applicants are the real occupants and beneficiaries of the Scheme L.R. No. 26642 FR 317/30, having settled on the land since the days of their ancestors. He stated that the Government was aware of their occupation which was crystallized and/or endorsed by a Gazette Notice. 3.He averred that their families have never been displaced or received any opposition on settling in the area and that this suit was mischievously filed in a clandestine manner. He contended that there was need for this Court to join them as interested parties as the outcome of the case would greatly affect them as occupants of the property in question. He averred that the Applicants were seeking draconian orders which were contrary to principles applicable to forced displacement and therefore it was important that all relevant parties participate in the proceedings so that there is a complete settlement of the dispute. 4.He annexed to the Supporting Affidavit, a copy of the authority to plead and copies of photos of the structures constructed by the government in the area. 5.The Ex-parte Applicants filed a replying affidavit dated 06.07.2024 sworn by Ben Kanyeji. He deposed that they are the lawful beneficiaries of the Scheme and were issued with title deeds. He contends that the Intended Interested Parties have not demonstrated any prejudice they would suffer if the present application is allowed, noting that at this stage the Ex‑parte Applicants are only seeking leave to file a substantive judicial review application against the Respondents. It is emphasized that the orders sought do not touch on ownership of the subject property, but rather seek mandamus to compel the Respondents to provide security to the Applicants as they occupy their parcels of land. 6.The deponent avers that the Intended Interested Parties have no stake in the proceedings, as the orders sought relate solely to the Respondents. It is further stated that titles for the beneficiaries were issued by the 3rd Respondent, and since the issuance has not been challenged, the Intended Interested Parties cannot now contest the legitimacy of the suit and therefore their participation, it is argued, will yield no fruit. He attached to the affidavit a list of the beneficiaries of the scheme and their title numbers. 7.The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Applicants filed submissions dated 09.11.2024. They submitted that the orders sought in the Judicial Review application are unconstitutional, inhumane, and will result in the loss of lives and mass displacement of their families and other vulnerable groups and if not joined in the suit they will suffer irreparably. They submitted that by dint of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, they are necessary parties to the suit and that their participation will assist the Court to effectually complete the adjudication of the case. To support their submissions, they cited the cases of Judicial Service Commission –vs- Speaker of the National Assembly and Another (2013) eKLR, Kenya Medical Laboratory Technicians and Technologist Board and 6 Others v Attorney General and 4 others (2017) eKLR among others. 8.The Ex-parte Applicants on their part filed submissions dated 12.11.2024. They submitted that joinder of parties is governed by Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules and that the Court in the case of Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another -vs- Republic and 5 others (2016) eKLR gave guidelines to be followed for joinder of parties. They submitted that the Intended Interested Parties had not demonstrated which stake they have in the matter. 9.They averred that the mere fact that they are in occupation of the suit land is not enough as the suit by the Ex-parte Applicants is against the Respondents to be compelled to do what they ought to have done. They maintained that the Intended Interested Parties were not necessary parties in the proceedings and that they were only interested in delaying the proceedings further. The Court was urged to dismiss the application with costs. 10.I have considered the application, the response made to it, and the rival submissions. I have also had a look at the entire matter generally. The issue for determination is whether the intended interested parties have met the requisite threshold for joinder as interested parties. It is necessary first to highlight the applicable law. Joinder of parties to a case is provided for under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, which 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 and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added.” 11.It is clear from the above provisions that the purpose for joinder is primarily to allow the court to adjudicate upon all issues in dispute in an effective and complete manner. Joinder is meant to help avoid filing of multiple suits and is also aimed at protecting the rights of all parties involved. The applicants would wish to be joined in the suit as interested parties. Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (supra) does not specifically mention “interested” parties but it mentions persons “whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved…” My understanding is that interested parties are subsumed under this rubric. 12.Further, the Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, at page 1232 defines an interested party thus: A party who has a recognizable stake (and therefor standing) in the matter. And in the case of Communication Commission of Kenya & 4 others -vs- Royal Media Services Limited & 7 others Petition No. 7 of 2014 [2014] eKLR the Supreme Court defined an Interested Party thus:“An interested party is one who has a stake in the proceedings, though he/she was not a party to the cause ab initio. He/she is one who will be affected by the decision of the court when it is made, either way a person feels that his interest will not be articulated unless he or she, himself/herself appears in the proceedings and champions his or her cause.” 13.Long ago, in Departed Asians Property Custodian Board –vs- Jaffer Brothers Ltd. [1999] 1 EA 55 the court explicated the necessity for joinder as follows:“A clear distinction is called for between joining a party who ought to have been joined as a defendant and one whose presence before the court is necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. A party may be joined in a suit, not because there is a cause of action against it, but because that party’s presence is necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the cause or matter …For a person to be joined on the ground that his presence in the suit is necessary for effectual and complete settlement of all questions in the suit one or two things has to be shown. Either it has to be shown that the orders, which the plaintiff seeks in the suit, would legally affect the interest of that person, and that it is desirable, for avoidance of multiplicity of suits to have such a person joined so that he is bound by the decision of the court in that suit. Alternatively, a person qualifies (on an application for defendant) to be joined as a co-Defendant, where it is shown that the defendant cannot effectually set a defence he desires to set up unless that person is joined in it, or unless the order to be made is to bind that person.” 14.It is clear to this court from all this that joinder as an interested party is governed by legal principles that focus on effective adjudication of a matter. In considering the issue of joinder, the court is always mindful to protect the rights or interests of all those who may be affected by the outcome of a given case. The court has broad discretion in allowing or denying joinder and it should not be assumed that it is an automatic right of a party. 15.I now turn to the matter on hand. It is a judicial review matter and such matters usually have interested parties. The matter under consideration was however filed without such parties. It was meant to be a simple and straight forward application in which the Exparte Applicants wanted leave to apply for the prerogative order of mandamus compelling the respondents to provide security or other support to relocate the Exparte Applicants to Mwea Settlement Scheme LR. 26462 FR 317/30. It was also desired that an order of mandamus be issued to compel the 1st respondent to implement the recommendations given by the Parliamentary Departmental Committee on land on 4/12/2019. 16.It seems curious that the application is asking for provision of security to ensure that the ExParte applicants settle on parcels of land they consider to be their own. A question that readily comes to mind is why there is need for security. The answer seems to be that there are people on the land. Although the application was styled as an ExParte one, the court saw the need to have it served. It was served on the respondent and after that service, a replying affidavit dated 4/3/2024 was filed. The replying affidavit makes it clear that “Mwea Settlement Scheme LR 26462 FR 317/30 is a contested area with several claimants and over 30,000 settlers already in occupation of the land.” 17.With the above information well provided by the respondents, it becomes clear that the provision of security sought to be secured through issuance of an order of mandamus is meant to remove, displace and/or evict the people already in occupation so that the ExParte applicants can occupy and/or possess their alleged parcels of land. 18.When the application now under consideration came later seeking joinder of thousands people as interested parties, this does not surprise this court. These are people who are genuinely apprehensive that the orders to be issued by this court might affect them. 19.What the ExParte Applicants are seeking to do will obviously affect actual or perceived interests of the applicants in the application now under consideration. In fact, from their application, it is clear that they view themselves as the rightful owners of the land. 20.In my view, the applicants have chosen the right thing to do namely: Coming to court to ask for joinder rather than taking the law into their own hands. Land matters are emotive and it would be wrong in my view to deny hearing to a party who is likely to be adversely affected by the decision that the court might make. The applicants seem to me to be such parties. The court is concerned that if the orders sought by the ExParte Applicants are ultimately granted, the implementation of the orders might ultimately amount to condemning the applicants unheard. The right to be heard is sacrosanct and the applicants obviously deserve to be heard. 21.It is in light of the foregoing that I make a finding that the application before me is meritorious. I hereby allow the application. Costs in the cause. RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KITUI THIS 30TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PURSUANT TO NOTICE DATED 17/6/2026.In the presence of,Court Assistant – MusyokiApplicant – AbsentRespondent – AbsentInterested Party - AbsentNo Counsel PresentA. KANIARUJUDGE- ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT, KITUI