https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3883

Republic v The Chairman National Land Commission & 19 others (Proposed Interested Parties Suing on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of the Members of Kishamba B Community); Kishamba B Group Ranch (Ex parte Applicant) (Environment and Planning Judicial Review E007 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3883 (KLR) (29 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3883 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Voi Environment and Planning Judicial Review E007 of 2025 EK Wabwoto, J June 29, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF: THE NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION ACT, 2012 AND IN THE MATTER OF: THE PUBLIC FINANCE MANAGEMENT ACT, 2012 Between Republic Applicant and The Chairman National Land Commission 1st Respondent The Director of Finance – National Land Commission 2nd Respondent The Chief Executive Officer National Land Commission 3rd Respondent Kishamba B Community 4th Respondent and National Land Commission Interested Party and Gadiel Mwanjele Kilaghai 1st Proposed Interested Party Thomas Wandeto Kimbio 2nd Proposed Interested Party Philemon Mwamodo 3rd Proposed Interested Party Hezekiah Mwadeghu 4th Proposed Interested Party Raymond Mazai 5th Proposed Interested Party Anderson Mngola 6th Proposed Interested Party Alfred Mwapea 7th Proposed Interested Party Kenneth Mlambo 8th Proposed Interested Party Benard Kilaghai 9th Proposed Interested Party Emmanuel Barisa 10th Proposed Interested Party Ibrahim Mwanjele 11th Proposed Interested Party Appollo Mwakaba 12th Proposed Interested Party Selina Mjomba 13th Proposed Interested Party Martha Chuma 14th Proposed Interested Party Dunstan Kimbio 15th Proposed Interested Party Proposed Interested Parties Suing on Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of the Members of Kishamba B Community and Kishamba B Group Ranch Ex parte Applicant Ruling 1.The application for determination before the Court is a Notice of Motion dated 19th May, 2026 brought by fifteen (15) persons described as the Proposed Interested Parties, suing on their own behalf and on behalf of the members of the Kishamba B Community (hereinafter “the Proposed Interested Parties’ application”). It is expressed to be brought under Articles 22, 47, 50 and 159 of the Constitution, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Order 53 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules. After the spent prayers for urgency and arrest of the ruling, the surviving prayers seek to have the fifteen applicants joined in these proceedings as interested parties, with leave to file responses, affidavits, submissions and any pleadings necessary, and for costs. 2.For context, the dispute giving rise to these proceedings concerns compensation payable by the National Land Commission in respect of land excised from the former Kishamba B Group Ranch for the Standard Gauge Railway Project in Taita Taveta County. The matter is at the execution stage, the Ex-parte Applicant having obtained a decree against the Respondents. What is now contested is, in substance, who is entitled to receive and deal with the decretal/compensation monies on behalf of the community. 3.The Proposed Interested Parties’ application is supported by the certificate of urgency, the supporting affidavit of Gadiel Mwanjele Kilaghai sworn on 19th May, 2026, an authority to swear executed by the fifteen applicants, and a certificate of electronic evidence. It is canvassed by M/s C. Ng’ang’a & Co. Advocates. 4.The Proposed Interested Parties depose that they are bona fide members and beneficiaries of the former Kishamba B Group Ranch and the current community land, and are directly affected by the outcome of these proceedings, in particular the compensation funds payable through the National Land Commission. They contend that after the issuance of the Certificate of Community Land on 12th November, 2025, certain persons purported to conduct elections and install themselves as officials of the community land irregularly, unlawfully and without proper participation and approval of members; that those purported officials now seek to control and/or receive the compensation monies; and that a vote of no confidence has since been raised against them by members owing to loss of trust and allegations of financial impropriety. 5.In support, the Proposed Interested Parties annex, among other documents: a Certificate of Registration of the community (“GMK-1”); signatures of members purportedly passing a vote of no confidence against the Community Land Management Committee (“GMK-2”); the Report of the Commission on Administrative Justice dated 31st August, 2017 on the bungled identification and compensation process (“GMK-3”); and material relating to a public meeting at Kizumanzi attended by the Governor of Taita Taveta County (“GMK-4”), supported by a certificate of electronic evidence under Section 106B of the Evidence Act. 6.Their case is that unless they are joined, the Court risks determining issues touching on compensation, representation and ownership without hearing the persons directly affected; that there exists a real danger that compensation monies belonging to community members may be released to or controlled by persons whose legitimacy is disputed; and that their participation is necessary for the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions in controversy. 7.The application is opposed by the 4th Respondent, the Kishamba B Community, through the replying affidavit of George Mwandoto Soghe sworn on 29th May, 2026, who deposes that he is the chairman of the 4th Respondent’s Community Land Management Committee. The 4th Respondent is represented by M/s Litoro & Omwebu Advocates. 8.The 4th Respondent contends that it is the duly registered representative of the Kishamba B Community, having taken over representation, ownership and management of the community’s assets, liabilities and proceedings from the demised Ex-parte Applicant by operation of Section 47 of the Community Land Act and the Transitional Provisions in the Schedule thereto, with effect from 12th November, 2025 when it was incorporated, and a Certificate of Title for the suit property having issued in its name on 17th February, 2026. 9.The 4th Respondent deposes that the application is superfluous and misconceived in law and fact; that the intended interested parties lack locus standi to be joined or to represent the interests of the Kishamba B Community; that they were neither parties to the subject decree nor registered owners of the suit land; that they have not demonstrated exhaustion of the dispute-resolution mechanisms under Part VIII of the Community Land Act, contrary to the doctrine of exhaustion; that the challenge to the legitimacy of the 4th Respondent is res judicata, having been determined with finality in Voi ELCEPJR No. E001/2025; and that the CAJ Report relied on, dated 31st August, 2017, predates the registration of the 4th Respondent and the election of its officials and does not override the decree. The 4th Respondent prays that the application be dismissed with costs. 10.In opposing the application, Mr. Litoro, learned counsel for the 4th Respondent, relied on the 4th Respondent’s replying affidavit. He submitted that the Proposed Interested Parties, if at all they are members of the community, are deemed to have been represented in these proceedings by the Ex-parte Applicant or the 4th Respondent, and that there is nothing new which they seek to bring into the matter. He further submitted that the disputes they raise are matters for the alternative dispute resolution mechanisms and not directly for this Court, and that no prejudice would be suffered were the application to be dismissed. 11.In supporting the application, Ms. Ng’ang’a, learned counsel for the Proposed Interested Parties, submitted that the Proposed Interested Parties have a direct stake in the matter and that, while they are not challenging the decree, the outcome of the pending application will affect them. She submitted that they were not parties to the previous proceedings and that they wish to be heard. 12.I have considered the application, the supporting and replying affidavits, the annexures, the grounds of opposition, and the rival written submissions and authorities. The following issues arise for determination:(i)Whether the Proposed Interested Parties ought to be joined to these proceedings; and(ii)Who should bear the costs. 13.The principles governing joinder of an interested party are now firmly settled. In Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another v Republic & 5 Others [2016] eKLR, the Supreme Court held that a party seeking to be enjoined as an interested party must demonstrate: the personal interest or stake it has in the matter; that the interest is clearly identifiable and proximate enough to stand apart from anything merely peripheral; and the prejudice it would suffer in the event of non-joinder. Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules complements this, empowering the Court to join any person whose presence is necessary to enable it effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions in controversy. 14.Applying these principles, I am satisfied that the Proposed Interested Parties have demonstrated a sufficient stake. They depose that they are bona fide members and beneficiaries of the former group ranch and the present community land, and the subject matter of the execution is compensation payable for community land in which, as members, they assert a beneficial interest. That interest is neither peripheral nor speculative; it is directly engaged by the very question the execution will resolve, namely who receives and controls the compensation monies. The prejudice in the event of non-joinder is equally apparent: were the monies released to persons whose legitimacy the Proposed Interested Parties dispute, their asserted beneficial interest would, in practical terms, be defeated without their ever being heard. 15.The 4th Respondent’s objections that the Proposed Interested Parties lack locus, were not parties to the decree, have not exhausted the mechanisms under Part VIII of the Community Land Act, and that their challenge is res judicata are not without force, but they do not, at this stage, defeat joinder. The requirement that a party be joined to a pending matter is met: although judgment has been entered, the proceedings remain alive at the execution stage, the decree being as yet unsatisfied and the compensation monies undisbursed, and the live and pressing question being precisely who, between the contesting factions of the same community, may lawfully receive and deal with those monies. That the applicants were not parties to the decree is, by definition, true of every interested party, who by nature comes to a cause to which it was not party ab initio. The question of exhaustion of Community Land Act mechanisms, and the plea of res judicata grounded on Voi ELCEPJR No. E001/2025, raise contested questions of fact and law including the effect of the CAJ Report and the disputed vote of no confidence which are best ventilated once all affected persons are before the Court, rather than used to shut out, at the threshold, the very persons who claim to be most directly affected. The competing contentions as to legitimacy of representation are not for resolution on this interlocutory application; they will fall to be determined on a full record. 16.Joinder of the Proposed Interested Parties does not prejudice the Respondents or the Ex-parte Applicant; it serves the overriding objective under Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act of the just, expeditious and proportionate determination of the dispute, and it accords with the constitutional imperatives of fair hearing and access to justice under Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution. It is far better that the question of entitlement to community compensation monies be settled once, in the presence of all who lay claim to representing the community, than that it be litigated piecemeal in a multiplicity of proceedings. I am accordingly persuaded that the Proposed Interested Parties ought to be joined, on terms that confine their participation to the live issues at the execution stage. 17.For the avoidance of doubt, the joinder of the Proposed Interested Parties and the continued participation of the 4th Respondent are not a determination of the merits of the competing claims to represent the Kishamba B Community. Those claims, and the objections of res judicata, exhaustion and locus, remain open to be canvassed and determined on the merits in due course. 18.Costs follow the event under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, but the award of costs is ultimately a matter of the Court’s discretion. This is, at bottom, an intra-community dispute among persons asserting entitlement to community land compensation, and the issues raised were neither frivolous nor unarguable on any side. In the circumstances, and to avoid further depleting whatever resources are at stake, I consider that the most just order is that each party bears its own costs of the application. 19.In the result, and for the reasons set out above, I make the following orders:(a)The Proposed Interested Parties’ Notice of Motion dated 19th May, 2026 is allowed in the following terms:(i)The fifteen (15) applicants named in the Notice of Motion be and are hereby joined to these proceedings as Interested Parties.(ii)The Interested Parties are granted leave to file and serve their responses, affidavits and submissions, if any, in relation to the execution proceedings, within fourteen (14) days of the date hereof.(b)For avoidance of doubt, nothing in this ruling determines the merits of the competing claims to represent the Kishamba B Community, or the objections of res judicata, exhaustion of remedies and locus standi, all of which remain open for determination on the merits.(c)Each party shall bear its own costs of the application.Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT VOI THIS 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.E. K. WABWOTOJUDGEIn the presence of:Ms. Mwombe for the Ex-parte ApplicantMr. Litoro for the 4th RespondentMs. Nga’anga for the proposed Interested PartiesCourt Assistant; Joseph Letisia