https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4709

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT KERUGOYA** **ELCJR NO. E002 OF 2025** **REPUBLIC ……………………………………………………… APPLICANT** **VERSUS** **GLADYS MIRIGO NYAGA ……………………………… 1ST RESPONDENT** **MANAGER MWEA IRRIGATION SETTLEMENT ……. 2ND RESPONDENT** **NATIONAL IRRIGATION AUTHORITY ……………… 3RD RESPONDENT** **THE HON. ATTORNEY GENERAL …………………… 4TH RESPONDENT** **PRINCIPAL MAGISTRATE WANG’URU ……………… 5TH RESPONDENT** **AND** **TABITHA WANJIRU MURIUKI …………………... EX-PARTE APPLICANT** **JUDY WANJIKU MBUTITI …………….. INTENDED INTERESTED PARTY** **RULING** ***[Notice of Motion Dated 27th November 2025]*** 1. Before Court for determination is the Notice of Motion dated 27th November 2025 brought pursuant to **Sections 1A and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21 of the Laws of Kenya, Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules**, as well as **Sections 16, 17, 18, 19 and 79 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012**, by the Intended Interested Party, Judy Wanjiku Mbutiti. Through the Motion, the Intended Interested Party seeks for principally, leave to be joined to these proceedings as an Interested Party and, upon such joinder, be granted leave to file the necessary pleadings in support of her claim. She also prays for the costs of the application. The Motion is premised on the grounds appearing on its face and is supported by the affidavit sworn by the Intended Interested Party on the even date. 1. The Intended Interested Party's case is that she is one of the widows of the late Johnson Muriuki Murage, the original holder of **Rice Holding No. 1774**, measuring approximately five acres. She asserts that disputes arose between herself, the Ex parte Applicant, and another widow, Rose Waruguru, regarding the occupation and utilisation of the rice holding, prompting the parties to seek the intervention of the National Irrigation Authority through its arbitration mechanism. 2. According to the Intended Interested Party, she paid the prescribed arbitration fees of **Kshs.5,000/=** on 14th February 2024 and expected to be notified of the date scheduled for the arbitration proceedings. Her grievance is that the arbitration committee proceeded to hear and determine the dispute in her absence without notifying her, ultimately distributing the rice holding without giving her an opportunity to be heard. She contends that the decision directly affects the interest she claims over the rice holding, and that unless she is joined to these proceedings, she will be denied the opportunity to challenge a process which she maintains violated her right to a fair hearing. 3. The Motion is opposed by the 1ST Respondent through grounds of opposition dated 17th December 2025, and her replying affidavit, sworn on 17th December 2025. The 1st Respondent raises three principal objections to the application. Firstly, that the Intended Interested Party lacks the requisite locus standi to seek the orders sought, as the dispute relating to property previously held by the late Johnson Muriuki Murage, whose estate, according to the Respondent, can only be represented by a duly appointed personal representative in accordance with the **Law of Succession Act.** Secondly, the Intended Interested Party has failed to establish that she was a wife or beneficiary of the deceased, no documentary evidence having been placed before the Court to support that assertion. Thirdly, that her participation in these proceedings is unnecessary as all persons with a legitimate interest in the suit rice holding are already before the Court. 1. In support of her position, the 1st Respondent relies on surrender affidavits allegedly executed by the late Johnson Muriuki Murage on 28th November 2023, which, according to her, recognised only the Ex parte Applicant and Rose Waruguru Mugo as the deceased's wives, while excluding the Intended Interested Party. The 1st Respondent further avers that the deceased separately surrendered one acre of the rice holding to her and maintains that the Intended Interested Party has failed to satisfy the legal threshold for joinder. She accordingly urges the Court to dismiss the application with costs. 2. Directions were subsequently issued that the Motion be canvassed by way of written submissions. The learned counsel for the Intended Interested Party filed their written submissions dated 18th February 2026, inter alia, reiterating the factual basis of the application and maintained that she had demonstrated a direct and identifiable stake in the subject matter of the proceedings. Counsel relied on the case of ***Macademia Nuts Dealers versus Horticultural Crops Development Authority & Others [2014] eKLR*** and submitted that the Intended Interested Party's exclusion from the arbitration proceedings, despite having paid the prescribed arbitration fees, rendered her a necessary participant in these proceedings. Counsel further contended that the objection founded on want of letters of administration was misconceived, arguing that the rice holding in question was held under the National Irrigation Authority's tenure regime, and did not constitute property requiring succession proceedings. 1. Although the Ex parte Applicant indicated that she would oppose the Motion, neither a replying affidavit nor written submissions were filed. 2. The 1st Respondent did not file written submissions, but elected to rely on the filed grounds of opposition and the replying affidavit that are on record. 3. I have considered the grounds on the application, grounds of opposition, affidavit evidence, submissions by the intended interested party’s counsel and come to the following findings: 1. The jurisdiction of the Court to add parties to proceedings is donated by **Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules**, which provides that: ***“(2) 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.”*** The object of the above provision is to ensure that all persons whose presence is necessary for the complete and effectual determination of the dispute are before the Court. * 1. In the case of ***Departed Asians Property Custodian Board versus Jaffer Brothers Ltd* [1999] 1 EA 55,** the Court observed that a party may be joined, not because a cause of action exists against him, but because his presence is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. ***“I agree with the submission of counsel for the Respondent that 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 to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.”*** **Order I Rule l0 (2) of Civil Procedure Rules** is similar to the **English R.S.C Order 16 r. 11** under which the case of ***Amon versus Raphael Tuck & Sons Ltd, (1956) 1 ALLER p. 273***, was considered and decided and in which it was said that 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. * 1. Similarly, in the case of ***Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance versus Mumo Matemu & 5 Others* [2014] eKLR**, the Supreme Court stated that: ***"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."*** The Intended Interested Party relied on the decision in the case of ***Macademia Nuts Dealers versus Horticultural Crops Development Authority & Others* [2014] eKLR,** where the Court adopted a similar approach, holding that an interested party is one who has a direct stake in the proceedings and whose interests are likely to be affected by the Court's decision unless afforded an opportunity to participate. * 1. Applying the above principles to the present application, the Court is not called upon at this interlocutory stage to determine whether the Intended Interested Party is indeed a widow of the late Johnson Muriuki Murage, or whether she is entitled to any portion of **Rice Holding No. 1774**, or whether the provisions of the **Law of Succession Act** are applicable to her claim. Those are contested issues that go to the merits of the dispute, and can only be determined upon hearing the substantive matter. To resolve them at this stage would amount to prejudging the dispute. The question presently before the Court is simply whether the Intended Interested Party has demonstrated a sufficient stake in the subject matter to justify her participation in these proceedings. 2. The Intended Interested Party has exhibited a receipt showing payment of **Kshs.5,000/=** to the National Irrigation Authority as arbitration fees on 14th February 2024. She contends that despite participating in the process leading to the arbitration, she was never notified of the date when the Arbitration Committee sat, and that the dispute was determined in her absence. Whether those allegations are ultimately proved is a matter for the substantive hearing. However, they demonstrate that she claims an interest in the proceedings, and that the impugned decision is alleged to have been reached without her participation. * 1. The 1st Respondent contends that the Intended Interested Party lacks locus standi for want of letters of administration, and further disputes that she was a wife of the deceased. Those objections are not without significance. However, they are defences to the claim the Intended Interested Party seeks to advance and not, in the circumstances of this application, a bar to her participation in proceedings whose outcome she contends directly affects her interests. The Respondent will remain at liberty to canvass those issues at the appropriate stage. 2. I am also unable to discern any prejudice that the existing parties stand to suffer should the Intended Interested Party be joined to these proceedings. Her joinder does not amount to a determination of the rights she claims. It merely affords her an opportunity to present her case, while leaving the Court to determine the merits after considering all the evidence that is to be presented. Conversely, declining the application would exclude a person who asserts that she was left out of the very process whose outcome is now before the Court. 3. In my view, the intended interested party has demonstrated a sufficient stake in the subject matter to justify her participation in these proceedings. Taking all the circumstances into account, I am therefore satisfied that the Intended Interested Party has demonstrated a proximate and identifiable stake in the subject matter of these proceedings. Her participation will assist the Court in effectually and completely determining all the questions arising from the dispute, as contemplated under **Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.** 4. Under **Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act Chapter 21 of Laws of Kenya,** costs follow the events unless where the court finds otherwise on good grounds. In view of the nature of the application, I find it just to order that costs abide the outcome of the proceedings herein. 1. In view of the foregoing determinations, the court finds and orders as follows. 1. **That the intended interested party is granted leave to join these proceedings as an Interested Party.** 2. **That the interested party is at liberty to file and serve her pleadings and documents in twenty one (21) days from the date of this ruling.** 3. **That the other parties are granted corresponding leave to respond to any new issues of facts after service.** 4. **The costs of the application to abide the outcome of the proceedings herein.** It is so ordered. **DATED, SIGNED AND VIRTUALLY DELIVERED ON THIS 22ND DAY OF JULY 2026.** **S. M. Kibunja** **ELC JUDGE** **In the presence of:** Ex-parte Applicant – Present in Person. Respondents – No appearance Interested Party – No Appearance Kinyua/Charles - Court Assistants **S. M. Kibunja** **ELC JUDGE**