Rotich & 7 others v Yator & 14 others (Environment and Land Petition 12 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 4467 (KLR) (16 July 2026) (Ruling)

Rotich & 7 others v Yator & 14 others (Environment and Land Petition 12 of 2020) [2026] KEELC 4467 (KLR) (16 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4467 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Eldoret Environment and Land Petition 12 of 2020 CK Yano, J July 16, 2026 IN THE MATTER OF ARTICLE 22(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA, 2010 AND THE ALLEGED CONTRAVENTION OF RIGHTS OR FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS UNDER ARTICLE 19, 27, 29, 33 (2)(3), 35, 40,47, 48 AND 50(1) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 AND THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS) PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE RULES MADE PURSUANT TO ARTICLE 22(3) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF KENYA 2010 AND THE MARAKWET DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION (MDA) AND THE KIPLOMBE/KIPLOMBE BLOCK 13 (GREENFIELD) WITHN KIBULGENY LOCATION, SOY DIVISION, SOY SUBCOUNTY, COUNTY OF UASIN GISHU AND THE ALLEGED KIPLOMBE GREENFIELD FARM GROUP BENEFICIARY LIST 2017 AND THE ALLEGED SEPTEMBER, 2017 BENEFICIARY LIST OF THE ALLEGED KIPLOMBE GREENFIELD GROUP AND THE TITLES REGISTRATION (GREENCARDS OPENING) AND ISSUANCE BASED ON THE ALLEGED SEPTEMBER, 2017 BENEFICIARY LIST AGAINST THE MEMBERS/LANDOWNERS OF THE MARAKWET DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION Between Samuel Kimosop Rotich 1st Petitioner Donald Kiprop Bett 2nd Petitioner John Ekiru Kelai 3rd Petitioner Andrew Chemweno 4th Petitioner Erick Cheruiyot Kipkore 5th Petitioner David Kibiwot Achikwa 6th Petitioner Samuel Chemeitoi Kipkiror 7th Petitioner Abraham Kipkosgei Chelang’a 8th Petitioner and John Kipchumba Yator 1st Respondent Michael Kiptanui Talam 2nd Respondent Nixon Kipchirchir Murrey 3rd Respondent The Kiplombe Greenfield Farm Group 4th Respondent The Marakwet Development Association (Mda) 5th Respondent The Chief – Kibulgeny Location 6th Respondent The Assistant County Commissioner, Soy Division 7th Respondent The Deputy County Commissioner, Soy Sub-County 8th Respondent The County Commissoner, Uasin Gishu County 9th Respondent The Land Registrar, County Of Uasin Gishu 10th Respondent The Chief Land Registrar, Nairobi 11th Respondent The Permanent Secretary, Interior And Coordination Of National Government 12th Respondent The Permanent Secretary, Ministry Of Lands 13th Respondent The Attorney General 14th Respondent The National Land Commission 15th Respondent Ruling 1.There are three applications before this court for determination in this ruling. A. Chamber Summons dated 25th March, 2024 2.The first Application is brought by the firm of Akenga Kimutai & Associates Advocates and it sought the following orders:-1.Spent2.That the Honourable Court be pleased to join the applicant and/or grant leave to the applicant to be joined as interested party to this suit.3.That if prayer 2 hereinabove is granted, the Honourable court be pleased to allow the applicant to move the court for grant of the following orders:a.Spentb.That the Honourable court be pleased to grant interim orders of stay of execution of the amended consent order, judgment and/or decree of this court issued on 20/4/2022 including directing the Land Registrar for Uasin Gishu County to stop any further registrations arising from the land parcel No. Kiplombe/Kiplombe Block 13(Greenfield) pending the hearing of this application.c.That the Honourable court be pleased to grant interim orders of stay of execution of the amended consent order, judgment and/or decree of this court issued on 20/4/2022 including directing the Land Registrar for Uasin Gishu County to stop any further registrations arising from the land parcel No. Kiplombe/Kiplombe Block 13(greenfield) until the suit and/or appeal challenging the advocate-client relationship between the applicant and the 5th Respondent and the taxed costs thereof is fully heard and determined.d.That the Honourable court be pleased to grant interim orders of stay of execution of the amended consent order, judgment and/or decree of this court issued on 20/4/2022 including directing the Land Registrar for Uasin Gishu County to stop any further registrations arising from the land parcel No. Kiplombe/Kiplombe Block 13(Greenfield) until the applicant taxed and fully settled.e.That in the alternative to prayer 2(d), the Honourable court be pleased to declare the applicant taxed costs and interests thereof from the date of the consent order issued on 5/12/2022 be a charge on all that undistributed portion of land parcel number Kiplombe/Kiplombe Block 13 (Greenfield) which is held by the fifth respondent on behalf of all its members including the petitioners who are its members.f.That the Honourable court be further pleased to direct that the applicant’s taxed costs and interests thereof from the date of the consent order issued on 5/12/2022 be paid out of all that undistributed portion of land parcel portion of land parcel number Kiplombe/kiplombe Block 13(Greenfield) which is held by the fifth respondent on behalf of all its members.g.That costs of this application be provided for. 3.The Application is premised on the grounds set out in the Summons and is supported by an Affidavit sworn by Anthony Awando Ogutu, an advocate working for the Applicant firm, Akenga Kimutai & Associates Advocates. The deponent averred that the suit herein was commenced vide a Petition dated 16.09.2020. That the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents instructed the Applicant firm to represent them, and the suit was settled by way of an Amended Consent Order issued on 02.04.2022 that was adopted as a judgment of the court. That following the judgment, the Applicant filed its bill of costs dated 14.11.2022 for services rendered to the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents in the matter. That they entered a consent on 05.12.2022 under which the applicant’s costs were taxed at KShs. 30,200,000/-. 4.The deponent avers that the 5th Respondent paid the deposit of KShs. 1,000,000/- as agreed in the consent, but has refused to settle the balance. He avers that the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents have begun executing the consent judgment, yet the Applicant’s taxed costs are yet to be paid. He deponed that the Petitioner filed a fresh suit challenging the advocate-client relationship between itself and the Applicant, which was heard and dismissed on 29.06.2023. That the 5th Respondent sought a review of that decision, but that was also dismissed on 11.12.2023, and the 5th Respondent has appealed that decision too. 5.The deponent points out that the 5th Respondent and its members are challenging the legality of the Applicant’s representation in the matter, and yet continue to execute the decree borne of the Applicant’s representation. He thus asked that the execution of the amended consent order adopted on 20.04.2022 be stayed pending hearing of the suit challenging the advocate-client relationship between the Applicant and the 5th Respondent. He avers that due to the challenge, the Applicant is inhibited from having his taxed costs entered as judgment against the 5th Respondent and cannot thus execute the costs against the 5th Respondent. 6.The deponent further states that in execution of the decree, the 5th Respondent is distributing portions of the suit land to its members and registering them as proprietors thereof, and upon completing its principal objectives and purpose, shall stand to be dissolved. That as a result, the Applicant will thus be left with a judgment it cannot execute, defeating its rights for payment of fees for representation in this matter. The Applicant urges that it stands to suffer substantial loss if judgment is not stayed as its taxed costs will remain unpaid. The Applicant claims an identifiable stake and interest in the matter warranting its joinder as an interested party. 7.The deponent further averred that if the suit challenging its representation of the 5th Respondent is allowed, it would have the effect of invalidating the amended consent of 22.04.2022 as it will be null and void ab initio, and the suit will have to be re-opened for fresh litigation. That stay of the execution will in this instance save the court from embarrassment and save judicial time and resources. That it is thus proper and in the interest of justice that the application herein be allowed. 8.The Petitioners responded through a Replying Affidavit sworn by the 1st Petitioner, Samwel Kimosop Rotich, on 30th May, 2024. He deponed that the Petitioners instituted the present suit and after being mentioned a few times, they agreed to undergo Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). The 6th - 15th Respondents were mandated to undertake the talks and assist in resolving the dispute. That the resolutions arising were contained in a report dated 23.11.2021, which was adopted as an order of the court on 20.04.2022, and is now being implemented by the 9th Respondent with the support of the Petitioners and the 5th Respondent’s members. 9.The 1st Petitioner deponed that at no point did the 5th Respondent or its members change advocates to Akenga Kimutai & Associates Advocates or Anthony Awando Ogutu. He accused the 1st Respondent of craftily changing advocates to the firm of Akenga Kimutai & Associates Advocates for the 1st, 3rd and 4th Respondents. He deponed that the 1st Respondent is a former chairman of the 5th Respondent, who was fond of using crafty means to achieve his aims, including using the firm of Akenga Kimutai & Associates Advocates against the 5th Respondent and its members. He explained that the 1st Respondent was charged in Eldoret CMCr No. 3596 of 2018 of crimes relating to sale of the 5th Respondent’s members’ land, and appointed Akenga Kimutai to represent him in that suit. 10.The 1st Petitioner averred that the 5th Respondent and its members were not involved in the consent of 05.12.2022 made in Eldoret ELC Misc. No. E059 of 2022 between the 1st Respondent, Allan Chelimo and Elizabeth Cheruiyot on one part and Akenga Kimutai on the other, for payment of KShs. 30,200,000/-. That the 1st Respondent is not a member of the 5th Respondent, and the said Allan Chelimo and Elizabeth Cheruiyot are not officials of the 5th Respondent as to authorise them to represent it in ELC Misc. No. E059 of 2022. He denied any liability on the part of the Petitioners or 5th Respondent and its members to pay the KShs. 30,200,000/- 11.The 1st Petitioner further averred that the Petitioners opposed the joinder of the Applicant as an interested party since the matter is about to be concluded through implementation of the order dated 22.04.2022. He claimed that the payment of the KShs. 1,000,000/- was a personal arrangement between the 1st Respondent, Alan Chelimo and Elizabeth Cheruiyot with the Applicant. That it did not include the Petitioners, the 5th Respondent or its members as it was not sanctioned at any Annual General Meeting (AGM). He further claims that since 2004, all land belonging to the 5th Respondent had been distributed and allocated to the members. According to the 1st Petitioner, the Applicant herein did not represent any party in the suit. 12.The 1st Petitioner explained that the 1st Respondent misappropriated the 5th Respondent’s members’ land and the members, including the Petitioners herein, objected. The 1st Petitioner, among other things, denied that the Applicant was instructed by the 5th Respondent’s members and reiterated that the Applicant was not party to the consent on payment of costs or the payment of the KShs. 1,000,000/-. The 1st Petitioner further denied the Applicant’s entitlement to legal fees or joinder as an interested party to the suit, or any other prayers sought in the Applicant’s Summons. He argued that the Chamber Summons is incompetent, vexatious, frivolous and an abuse of court process, and asked that it be disallowed with costs. 13.The Application was further opposed through the Replying Affidavit of Michael Kiptanui Talam, the 2nd Respondent herein, sworn on 28th May, 2024. He deponed that he was the chairman of the 5th Respondent’s Block Representatives (Block Reps). He deponed that upto and after 2015, there was no decision by the 5th Respondent’s members or officials to change advocates to Akenga Kimutai & Associates Advocates or Anthony Awando Ogutu in this matter. He avers that they came to know of Akenga Kimutai & Associates as the lawyers representing the 1st Respondent in Eldoret CMCr No. E3596 of 2018. 14.That in the said criminal case, the 5th Respondent is the Complainant and the 1st Respondent the accused who was later convicted. He averred that the 1st Respondent and his allies Allan Chelimo and Elizabeth Cheruiyot appointed the Applicant as the 1st Respondent’s Counsel to represent their interests in the criminal case. He urged that the costs of this suit by the Petitioners against them in this matter or the processing of titles for the 5th Respondent’s members upto and after 2017/2018 should not arise because the said exercise had already been done through the 6th-15th Respondents’ titling programme. B. Notice of Motion dated 26th January, 2026 15.The second Application is a Notice of Motion brought by the 1st Respondent, John Kipchumba Yator, seeking the following reliefs:1.Spent2.Spent3.That this Honourable Court may be pleased to review, vary and/or set aside the orders issued in the ruling delivered on 22nd January, 2026.4.That in the alternative this Honourable court be pleased to declare the ruling delivered on 22nd January, 2026 a nullity, having been founded on representations by a dissolved association lacking capacity.5.Costs of the suit. 16.The grounds in support of this application are set out on the face of the Motion, as well as in the 1st Respondent’s Supporting Affidavit sworn on 26th January, 2026. He deponed that on 22nd January, 2026, the Court issued orders prejudicial to him based on representations made on behalf of an association which had already been dissolved. He states that this was confirmed by a letter from the Registrar of Societies dated 14.05.2018. That having been dissolved, the association ceased to exist and had no capacity to participate in proceedings or benefit from orders issued. That the court was not informed of this fact at the time of the ruling, which was itself an error on the face of the record. That having been chairman and as a custodian of members records, he presented records indicating where counsel for the Petitioner falls as one of the beneficiaries as a member. 17.The 1st Respondent alleged that counsel for the Petitioners manipulated the original consent order as had been initially given on 21.04.2022 to be amended and sealed afresh on 02.09.2022 in favour of the Petitioners. That the said alterations were made with ill-motive against caution by Counsel for the 1st Respondent. He thus claims that unless stay is granted, the Applicant is likely to execute orders founded on a legal nullity, rendering this application nugatory. He urges that he stands to suffer irreparable and substantial loss if the orders are executed. He added that the application had been made promptly, and concluded that it is in the interest of justice that the application be allowed. 18.The 2nd Respondent opposed the Application through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 25th February, 2026. He averred that since inception of this suit, there has been no mention of the dissolution of the 5th Respondent on 14.05.2018 as alleged by the 1st Respondent. He deponed that the 1st Respondent never involved the 5th Respondent’s members or follow the proper procedure in the said dissolution. He claims that he became aware of the said dissolution after the ruling of 22.01.2026. He deponed that the elections of the 5th Respondent were held in order for the new officials to complete the verification exercise. He averred that on 28.01.2026, the 1st Respondent served their advocate on record, Joseph C.K. Cheptarus, who bought and paid for the suit property, with a letter dated 14.05.2018 referenced SOC/407/40756. 19.On their part, the Petitioners opposed the Application through a Replying Affidavit sworn by Samwel Kimosop Rotich on 26.02.2026. He accused the 1st Respondent of inter alia keeping secret the information on dissolution of the 5th Respondent, exploiting helpless members of the 5th Respondents and using the 5th Respondent’s constitution selectively for his gain among other things. He also accused the 1st Respondent of unilaterally orchestrating the dissolution of the 5th Respondent against the wishes of its members, and further faulted him for disobeying the court’s order made on 22.01.2026. The Petitioners pointed out that the 1st Respondent had procured representation for the 5th Respondent after its dissolution many years ago, and was only forced by circumstance to bring the said issue to light. 20.The Petitioners assert that the 1st Respondent stands to suffer no loss and damage should the orders of 22.01.2026 be enforced as he is neither a member, shareholder nor contributor to the 5th Respondent’s shares. He depones that the 1st Respondent’s application lacks merit and should be dismissed with costs. He further accused the 1st Respondent of dishonesty, as he knew or ought to have known of the 5th Respondent’s dissolution since the inception of the suit, and did not disclose it. He also pointed out that the 1st Respondent had admitted that the matter had been settled by the amended consent dated 20.04.2022. 21.In response to the Petitioner’s Affidavit, the 1st Respondent swore and filed a Further Affidavit dated 26.03.2026. He averred that Samuel Kimosop had no authority to act on behalf of the Association. He reiterated that the association was dissolved in 2018 and had no capacity to hold elections. That the consent order is still valid and binding and the Respondents cannot depart from it. He denied obstructing the verification exercise, and stated that it was being undertaken under lawful supervision as directed by this court. He claimed that the 3rd-8th Respondents are not members of the society. All in all, the 1st Respondent urged that the application was properly before court and asked that the application be allowed. 22.The Petitioners in turn denied the allegations in the 1st Respondent’s Further Affidavit by filing their own Further Affidavit dated 27th April, 2026. They reiterated that the 1st Respondent had admitted the dissolution of the 5th Respondent and the existence of the consent order. It is also reiterated that the Petitioners did not know of the 5th Respondent’s dissolution until it was disclosed by the 1st Respondent. They assert that they have always supported the execution process, while the 1st Respondent voluntarily withdrew from the verification process in writing. 23.The Attorney General opposed the Application through Grounds of Opposition on grounds that the application is incompetent, misconceived and bad in law for failing to meet the threshold for review under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules. That there is no new and important matter discovered which was not available at the time of the ruling. That there is no error on the face of the record as the issues raised require elaborate re-evaluation of evidence. That the Application sought to re-open, re-argue and re-litigate matters that were determined by this court, and that the orders sought are an appeal disguised as a review. That the 1st Respondent has not demonstrated sufficient reason to warrant review, and the application is only meant to delay execution of the orders of the court. That allowing the application would undermine the principle of finality in litigation. 24.The 1st Respondent filed another Further Affidavit dated 26th March, 2026 in response to the Hon. Attorney General’s Grounds of Opposition. He reiterated that the Association was dissolved on 14.05.2018, which information was placed in the court record vide his Supplementary Affidavit of 14.11.2025. He urged that the said information has never been disputed even by the Hon. AG, thus it cannot sue or be sued, nor hold elections and benefit or enforce court orders. He averred that the Court failed to consider or make a finding on it, thus the ruling of the court despite the said evidence was an error on the face of the record and a failure of justice, and the ruling was made per incuriam. 25.The 1st Respondent avers that the application is not based on discovery of new evidence but rather on failure to consider evidence already on record, which, he claims, falls under the realm of review. He claimed that the Petitioners being former officials lacked authority to act on behalf of the Association. Further, that the association having been dissolved, no person could purport to act in its name, thus any proceedings and orders founded thereon are legally untenable. He added that unless the orders are reviewed, illegal persons will continue to exercise powers they do not possess, and members will suffer prejudice and the court will have sanctioned an illegality. C. Notice of Motion dated 12th February, 2026 26.The final Application is the Notice of Motion dated 12th February, 2026 also brought by the 1st Respondent, through which he seeks the following orders:1.Spent2.That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant a stay of execution and enforcement of the Court order issued on 2nd February, 2026 and Ruling delivered on 22nd February, 2026 pending the inter-partes hearing scheduled for 2nd March, 2026.3.That the status quo prevailing as at the date of the earlier order directing service and fixing an inter partes hearing be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the said inter-partes proceedings4.That all consequential orders undertaken pursuant to the latter order be suspended forthwith pending the inter-partes hearing.5.Costs of this Application. 27.In the 1st Respondent’s Affidavit of even date sworn in support of this Application, he deponed that the matter was at the time scheduled for inter-partes hearing on 2nd March, 2026. That before the said hearing, a further order was issued on 2nd February, 2026 and enforcement thereof has commenced. He averred that he was not heard on the issues forming the basis of the said enforcement. He avers that there are no reasons given why enforcement should commence before the inter partes hearing. He claims that the Respondents actions are intended to frustrate and render nugatory the scheduled inter-partes hearing. He deponed that unless a stay is granted, the subject matter of the dispute will be altered irreversibly rendering the inter-partes hearing nugatory and he will suffer substantial and irreparable prejudice. He claimed that his life was in danger and had reported the matter at Eldoret Central Police Station vide OB No. 43/12/2/26. 28.Opposing the Motion, the Petitioners filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by Samuel Kimosop Rotich on 26th February, 2026. He deponed that the prayers sought in this application were similar to those sought in the Application dated 26.01.2026. He explained that on 22.01.2026, this court issued directions on the inter-partes hearing of the application dated 26.01.2026 for 02.03.2026. He pointed out that the existence of the consent order dated 20.04.2022 issued on 21.04.2022 and the amended consent order issued on 02.09.2022 are admitted. He accused the 1st Respondent of lying to gain sympathy from the court, yet he had absconded and sabotaged the implementation of the consent/amended consent given on 20.04.2022. He stated that the alleged threats to the 1st Respondent’s life have nothing to do with the 5th Respondent’s members. Submissions: 29.The Court directed that the three applications would be heard concurrently. The Court further directed the parties to file written submissions on the three applications. The Petitioner filed three sets of submissions all dated 17th April, 2026 in support of the three Applications herein. The firm of Akenga Kimutai & Associates Advcoates filed submissions dated 16th April, 2026. The court has taken time to read and extensively consider the submissions filed herein. Analysis and Determination: 30.I have carefully considered the three applications herein, the many affidavits filed in support and in opposition thereof and the annexures thereto. I have also read and considered the submissions by the parties herein and the authorities cited therein in support and grounds of opposition by the Hon. AG. Despite the sheer number of affidavits and annexures filed in the three applications, only five issues can be drawn for determination by this court. These are:-i.Whether the firm of Akenga Kimutai and Associates Advocates should be joined to this suit as an interested party;ii.Whether there should be stay of execution of the orders issued on 20.04.2022 as sought by the Interested Party;iii.Whether the orders of this court made on 22.01.2026 should be reviewed, varied or set aside;iv.What should be the outcome of the 1st Respondent’s Application dated 12.02.2026? andv.Who shall bear the costs of the three Applications herein? Whether the firm of Akenga Kimutai and Associates Advocates should be joined to this suit as an interested party; 31.The first prayer in the Chamber Summons Application dated 25.03.2024 is that the firm of Akenga Kimutai be joined to the suit herein as an interested party. The Black’s Law Dictionary 9th Edition at page 1233 defines an interested party as a party who has a recognizable stake (and therefore standing) in a matter. The guiding principles upon which Courts make findings on an application for joinder of interested parties are now fully settled. 32.The law on joinder of an interested party is first Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which 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. 33.This being a constitutional Petition, however, the law for joinder of interested parties for Constitutional petitions is set out in the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013 referred to as the Mutunga Rules. The Mutunga Rules under Section 2 define an ‘interested party’ as:-“a person or entity that has an identifiable stake or legal interest or duty in the proceedings before the court but is not a party to the proceedings or may not be directly involved in the litigation.” 34.The joinder of an Applicant as an interested party is provided for under Rule 5(d)(ii) of the Mutunga Rules, which states 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 just—(ii)that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court adjudicate upon and settle the matter, be added. 35.The applicable principles in an application for joinder as an interested party were set out in the Supreme Court decision of Francis Karioki Muruatetu Ltd & Another vs Republic & 5 others (2016) eKLR, where the Court held as follows:-“i.The personal interest or stake that the party has in the matter must be set out in the application. The interest must be clearly identifiable and must be proximate enough, to stand apart from anything that is merely peripheral.ii.The prejudice to be suffered by the intended interested party in case of non-joinder, must also be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court. It must also be clearly outlined and not something remote.iii.Lastly, a party must, in its application, set out the case and/or submissions it intends to make before the Court, and demonstrate the relevance of those submissions. It should also demonstrate that these submissions are not merely a replication of what the other parties will be making before the Court.” 36.In Abib t/a Abib and Associates Advocates v Director of Public Prosecution & 3 others; Law Society of Kenya (Interested Party); Sheik & 2 others (Intended Interested Party) (Petition 160 of 2019) [2023] KEHC 722 (KLR), the court acknowledged the power to join parties as follows:-“To be joined as an interested party is therefore not a matter of right and neither is it automatic. Any joinder to, or appearance in proceedings is discretionary and each case must be examined on its own merits and circumstances as against the set principles. In every application for joinder the paramount consideration for the Court will be the interest of the primary parties.” 37.Therefore, a party seeking to be joined as an interested party must demonstrate the personal interest that he/she has in the matter by laying sufficient grounds before the Court; the prejudice he/she would suffer if he/she is not joined as interested party; set out the case that he/she intends to make before the Court and demonstrate the relevance of the evidence being proffered to the Court in determining the issue in controversy. 38.The first requirement is that the party to be joined must have a stake in the proceedings, which is identifiable and proximate, and specifically, should not be peripheral. In the case at hand, the Applicant’s case as set out in the Chamber Summons Application is that the said firm represented the 1st, 3rd, 4th and 5th Respondents in the matter until it was settled by way of a consent. 39.It is claimed that the costs were taxed and another consent was entered for payment of KShs. 30,200,000/- as legal fees. However, it is claimed that only KShs. 1,000,000/- was paid and the balance remains outstanding to date. The Applicant claims that the 5th Respondent is in the process of allocating land to its members, and once that mandate is completed, it will be dissolved, leaving the Applicant’s taxed costs unpaid. The Applicant asks to be joined as an Interested Party for these reasons. 40.In this case, however, the claim for legal fees is not one that entitles the Applicant to any stake of the Petition. In any event, the suit was settled by way of consent, the existence of which the Applicant has acknowledged. Unless that consent is set aside, there are no other matters to be determined that will require the assistance of the intended Interested Party to be settled. There can thus be no stake capable of being addressed in a matter that has been fully settled as between the parties, thus the Applicant fails on this front. 41.Secondly, the prejudice to be suffered by the intended interested party in case of non-joinder must also be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court. Under this head, the Applicant has explained the non-payment of legal fees as the loss it will suffer. Indeed, the non-payment of legal fees is a prejudice to the Applicant, which is typically in the business of rendering legal services. However, the Applicant has explained that there are pending matters including an appeal as regards payment of the said costs. Evidently, therefore, the Applicant has an audience before which the matter was and is still being dealt with already. That being the case, any prejudice to be suffered should be addressed to such forum and not through the present Petition. On this requirement therefore, the Applicant also fails. 42.This brings me to the last requirement which is that the applicant must set out the case and/or submissions it intends to make before the Court, and demonstrate the relevance of those submissions. It should also demonstrate that its intended submissions are not merely a replication of what the other parties will be making before the Court. As already explained above, the Applicant’s main concern is the payment of legal fees/taxed costs. Taxation of costs and payment of legal fees is however not among the matters that can be raised as subject of a Constitutional Petition. In any event, there is a regime that governs and regulates the relationship between an advocate and their client as well as payment of legal fees and costs. A constitutional Petition is not one among the processes envisaged to deal with such matters. 43.It follows therefore that the Applicant did not show how its presence or the presence of the said firm as an interested party will assist the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate the dispute between the current parties. The Applicant has equally failed to meet the threshold for joinder as an interested party in a constitutional petition. As a result, the prayer for joinder cannot issue. Whether there should be stay of execution of the orders issued on 22.01.2026 as sought by the Interested Party; 44.In the same Chamber Summons application, the Applicant sought a stay of execution of the consent/amended consent of 20.04.2022 for a number of reasons under Prayer 2(a)-(g) thereof. However, all these prayers were related directly to the issue of payment of the Applicant’s taxed costs. They were also dependent on the Applicant being joined to this suit first, in which case, the firm would be able to pursue payment of its alleged taxed costs. 45.Nevertheless, at issue (a) above, this court has declined the prayer for joinder. Since the said prayers 2(a)-(g) relied first on the joinder, it is clear that in the absence of the order for joinder they cannot issue. 46.In any event, there are only several instances under the Civil Procedure Rules under which a court may stay the execution of orders of a court. None of them however, envision the stay of execution to pave way for execution with respect of an advocates unpaid fees or taxed costs. For the forgoing reasons, the prayers numbered 2(a)-(g) in the Application dated 25.03.2024 cannot issue. Whether the orders of this court made on 22.01.2026 should be reviewed, varied or set aside; 47.In the Application dated 26.01.2026, the 1st Respondent herein seeks a review of the orders of this court arising from the ruling delivered on 22nd January, 2026. The substantive law governing review is found under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 Laws of Kenya, which provides as follows:-80.ReviewAny person who considers himself aggrieved—(a)by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Act, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or(b)by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Act, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order, and the court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit. 48.On the procedure for review, Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules is instructive, and in particular, Rule 1 thereof provides that:-1.Application for review of decree or order [Order 45, rule 1](1)Any person considering himself aggrieved—(a)by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred; or(b)by a decree or order from which no appeal is hereby allowed, and who from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree or order, may apply for a review of judgment to the court which passed the decree or made the order without unreasonable delay. 49.The requirements that warrant a court to review its judgment are:-i.The discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order madeii.Some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; oriii.Any other sufficient reason 50.The Court of Appeal in National Bank of Kenya Ltd vs Njau (Civil Appeal 211 of 1996) (1997) KECA 71 (KLR) held that on an application for review, it is particularly necessary that the application should disclose in the body of the notice of motion the ground or grounds on which the review is being sought. That aside, the party seeking review must strictly prove the grounds for review, failing which the application will not be granted. 51.From my reading of the 1st Respondent’s application seeking review and setting aside, the grounds relied on are that there is new matter or evidence that was not in the court’s knowledge at the time of the ruling. This matter regards the very existence of the 5th Respondent Association. The 1st Respondent brought up the issue that the 5th Respondent Association no longer exists as it was dissolved on 14th May, 2018 and there is a letter of the same date to that effect. The question therefore is whether this purported new evidence qualifies as new and important matter as to warrant an order for review. 52.I have considered what constitutes a new and important matter under the first parameter for review. Mativo J (as he then was) in Republic vs Advocates Disciplinary Tribunal Ex parte Apollo Mboya [2019] KEHC 6379 (KLR) held that:-“For material to qualify to be new and important evidence or matter, it must be of such a nature that it could not have been discovered had the applicant exercised due diligence. It must be such evidence or material that was not available to the applicant or the court. As stated above, the judgment in question was annexed to the Replying affidavit. The proceedings were part of the documents presented to the court. Differently stated, the material in question does not qualify to be new in that it was not available to the applicant or the court.” 53.From the facts of this case, it is clear that the issue of dissolution of the 5th Respondent Association cannot constitute new evidence that was not considered at the time of making the order. The statutory provisions with respect to review on grounds of new and important evidence require that neither the court nor the party seeking review should have had knowledge of the alleged new material evidence. 54.I note that the 1st Respondent did not inform the court when exactly he discovered the fact of dissolution of the Association. However, the 1st Respondent is a former official and ought to have known the status of registration of the 5th Respondent. Moreover, this Petition commenced in the year 2020, two years after the alleged dissolution, and the 1st Respondent never brought the matters to light. The 1st Respondent ought to have presented it before the court for its benefit at the time of the ruling. To withhold that information and spring it on the Respondents at this late stage is nothing short of trial by ambush, which our courts frown greatly upon. 55.Secondly, for information to qualify as new and important matter or evidence, the Applicant ought not have been able to obtain the said new matter or evidence even on the exercise of due diligence. All it would have taken was an inquiry at the registrar of societies to reveal to the 1st Respondent that the Association had been dissolved in the year 2018. This means that it would otherwise have been available on proper due diligence being done. The fact of dissolution therefore does not qualify as new and important evidence. 56.That aside, the 1st Respondent claims in his Further Affidavit dated 28.03.2026, that the issue of dissolution was brought to the court’s attention through his Supplementary Affidavit filed on 17.11.2025 by Mark Mwendwa Company Advocates. It must be noted that if indeed the matter was brought to the attention of the court prior to the delivery of the ruling, then the court was well aware of it, and still went on to determine the Application as it did. The 1st respondent, being aggrieved with the decision of the court ought to have lodged an appeal and not seek a review. For the avoidance of doubt, if this court were to allow the review sought on grounds of failure to consider evidence, it would be sitting on appeal of its own decision. 57.The second ground for review is found in the Further Affidavit dated 28.03.2026, which is that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. On this ground of review, the 1st Respondent averred that failure to consider the said information that the Association was dissolved in the ruling of 22.01.2026 despite the information having been availed, constitutes an error on the face of the record. 58.As to what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, I will quote the Court Appeal in its decision in the case National Bank of Kenya Limited vs Ndungu Njau (1997) eKLR, where it was explained as follows:-“A review may be granted whenever the Court considers that it is necessary to correct an apparent error or omission on the part of the Court. The error or omission must be self-evident and should not require an elaborate argument to be established. It will not be a sufficient ground for review that another Judge could have taken a different view of the matter. Nor can it be a ground for review that the Court proceeded on an incorrect exposition of the law and reached an erroneous conclusion of law. Misconstruing a statute or other provision of law cannot be a ground for review.” 59.The 1st Respondent did not point to any patent error or defect that is so obvious or self-evident that it can be discerned on the face of the ruling. He instead faults the court for failing to take into account the information allegedly contained in his supplementary affidavit filed on 17.11.2025 that the association was dissolved. Evidently, this cannot be deemed an error apparent on the face of the record. What the 1st Respondent seeks is a reconsideration of the application, evidence and annexures that gave rise to the ruling delivered on 22.01.2026, so as to arrive at a different view of the matter. This court has no jurisdiction to undertake such an endeavour as it would be sitting on appeal of the said ruling. Instead, the 1st Respondent ought to have used that as a ground of appeal. 60.Thirdly, the 1st Respondent has also claimed that there is sufficient reason to grant a review of the ruling delivered on 22.01.2026. He claimed that there was a register of members records listing Counsel for the Petitioner as one of the beneficiaries. He also claims that the Petitioners and Respondents had manipulated consent order issued on 21.04.2022 and altered it with ill motive. He added that if the orders sought are not issued, the Applicant will execute orders founded on a nullity. 61.My understanding of these two issues are that the 1st Respondent is challenging the validity of the consent order adopted by this court. If that is indeed the intent, then the 1st Respondent ought to have followed the laid down procedure for contesting a consent order. I further note that the 1st Respondent himself admitted in his further Affidavit dated 26.03.2026 that the application for review was not premised on the discovery of new evidence, but the failure to consider evidence already on record. As already pointed out herein, the alleged failure to consider evidence on record is actually a ground for appeal and it is without a doubt not a ground for review. 62.All in all, the 1st Respondent has not established that there exists any ground to warrant the review and/or setting aside of the ruling of this court delivered on 22.01.2026. The said application therefore, lacks merit. What should be the outcome of the 1st Respondent’s Application dated 12.02.2026? 63.I do find that the application dated 12.02.2026 is of a unique nature. The substantive prayers sought in that application are that:-1.Spent2.That this Honourable Court be pleased to grant a stay of execution and enforcement of the Court order issued on 2nd February, 2026 and Ruling delivered on 22nd February, 2026 pending the inter-partes hearing scheduled for 2nd March, 2026.3.That the status quo prevailing as at the date of the earlier order directing service and fixing an inter partes hearing be maintained pending the hearing and determination of the said inter-partes proceedings4.That all consequential orders undertaken pursuant to the later order be suspended forthwith pending the inter-partes hearing. 64.The order annexed to the application as being in contest, was extracted from the ruling delivered on 22nd January, 2026 and the proceedings that took place after delivery thereof. For the avoidance of doubt, on that date, the court delivered its ruling on the Petitioners’ Application dated 29.07.2024. Thereafter, the court directed that the Application by the firm of Akenga Kimutai & Associates seeking joinder be heard on 2nd March, 2026. 65.First and foremost, I note that the prayers sought therein were only intended for the inter-partes hearing that was scheduled for 2nd March, 2026. The said date having since passed, the prayers therein have all been overtaken by events. 66.But that notwithstanding, I find that the said application was indirectly and, I must point out, mischievously seeking to stay the execution of the Ruling delivered on 22nd January, 2026. The 1st Respondent had already sought the same orders in his application dated 26.01.2026, and a repeat of the same in the Notice of Motion of 12.02.2026 was not only dishonest but a total waste of judicial time. Needless to state that the said application lacks merit and is dismissed. Who shall bear the costs of the three Applications herein? 67.The final issue for determination is the costs of the three applications. Under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, costs are awarded at the discretion of the court. Moreover, they are ideally awarded to the successful party in any litigation, hence the general rule that costs follow the events. 68.There are three applications determined vide this ruling. The first is by the firm of Akenga Kimutai and Associates Advocates, who failed to establish the need to be joined to this Petition. Having so failed, the said firm shall resultantly bear the costs of the said application as against the parties that participated therein. 69.The 1st Respondent filed two applications dated 26.01.2026 and 12.02.2026. He has failed on both, and as a result, he shall equally bear the costs of the said two applications. Orders:- 70.Consequently, this court hereby makes the following orders in determination of the three applications:-a.The Chamber Summons Application by the firm of Akenga Kimutai & Associates Advocates dated 25th March, 2024 lacks merit and is dismissed with costs.b.The 1st Respondent’s Notice of Motion Application dated 26.01.2026 lacks merit and is also dismissed with costs.c.The 1st Respondent’s Notice of Motion Application dated 12.02.2026 equally lacks merit and is similarly dismissed with costs. 71.Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT ELDORET ON THIS 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 VIDE MICROSOFT TEAMS.HON. C. K. YANOELC, JUDGEIn the presence of:-Mr. Cheptarus for Petitioners.John Kipchumba Yator 1st Respondent/Applicant.Michael Tallam 2nd Respondent present in person.No appearance for 2nd -5th Respondents.Mr. Kwame for 6th -14th Respondents.No appearance for 15th Respondent.No appearance for proposed Interested Party.Court Assistant - Laban.