Samchi Telecommunications Limited v Abdalla & 6 others (Environment and Land Case E029 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4395 (KLR) (29 June 2026) (Ruling)

Samchi Telecommunications Limited v Abdalla & 6 others (Environment and Land Case E029 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 4395 (KLR) (29 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 4395 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Kwale Environment and Land Case E029 of 2023 LL Naikuni, J June 29, 2026 Between Samchi Telecommunications Limited Plaintiff and Abdalla Kombo Abdalla 1st Proposed Defendant Chief Land Registrar 2nd Proposed Defendant Land Registrar, Kwale 3rd Proposed Defendant Hon Attorney General 4th Proposed Defendant Joseph Kiprotich Koskei 5th Proposed Defendant Evans Nyatigo Marwanga 6th Proposed Defendant francis Ngau Musyok 7th Proposed Defendant Ruling I. Introduction 1.This Honourable Court was called to make a determination unto the Notice of Motion application dated 17th December, 2025 by Francis Ngau Musyoki, the Proposed 7th Defendant/Applicant herein. The Application was brought under the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, Sections 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 Laws of Kenya, together with all other enabling provisions of the law. In that application, the Applicant seeks to be enjoined in these proceedings as a necessary party, whether as a Defendant, Interested Party, or Amicus Curiae, and further prays that the plaint and other pleadings be amended accordingly to reflect his participation. He also seeks leave to file his pleadings and for the matter to be fixed for hearing afresh, contending that his equitable interest in the suit property – Land Reference Numbers Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2927 is critical for the just and complete determination of the dispute. 2.Upon service, the Plaintiff/Respondent opposed the application through a Replying Affidavit sworn on 6th March, 2026 by Henry Macharia, Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, acting on behalf of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff contends that the Applicant’s interests are already the subject of litigation in Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021 and that joinder in this suit would occasion delay, prejudice the expeditious disposal of the matter, and amount to an abuse of the court process. II. The 7th Proposed Defendant’s case 3.The 7th Proposed Defendant sought for the following orders:-a.Spent.b.Spent.c.That the Applicant Francis Ngau Musyoki be deemed a necessary party and be added as a defendant, interested party or Amicus curiae to this suit and the plaint and other pleadings be amended accordingly.d.That these proceedings be re-opened and the Applicant Francis Ngau Musyoki be granted leave to file his pleadings and this matter be fixed for hearing afresh.e.That costs of this application be provided for. 4.The application by the 7th Proposed Defendant herein was premised on the grounds, testimonial facts, and averments contained in the 35 Paragraphed Supporting Affidavit of Francis Ngau Musyoki, the 7th Proposed Defendant sworn and dated contemporaneously with the said application. The Applicant averred, “inter alia”, that:-a.He had read and perused the court file and proceedings in the matter, and where necessary his advocates had explained it to him.b.He filed the Application with the prayer that he be added to the suit as a necessary party, as he had a legitimate interest in the suit property Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2927, having participated in the series of transactions and events that were the subject of the lawsuit, and would contribute to the just determination of the suit, being directly affected by its outcome.c.He had entered into a sale agreement dated 12th October, 2012 with one John Maina Njoroge for the purchase of the suit property Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2927.d.He had purchased the suit property together with another parcel namely Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2894 jointly with his brother Andrew Muia Ngau and mother Margaret Mbulwa Ngau. The Affiant deponed that the two properties were beachfront parcels situated in Msambweni Sub-County, Kwale County, with Plot Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2894 measuring approximately 0.659 Ha and Plot Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2927 measuring approximately 2.8 Ha. The Affiant averred that the two parcels were adjacent to each other and fenced with a common stone perimeter wall. Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 001” was a copy of the Msambweni District Registry Map 28, showing plots Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2894 and Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2927.)e.John Maina Njoroge held a Land Certificate to the suit property “A”/2927, which he had shown to the Affiant prior to the sale transaction.Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM-002” was a copy of the Land Certificate to property “A”/2927 in the name of Njoroge, dated 2nd May, 1992, and “Exhibit FNM – 003” was a copy of a Green Card to property “A”/2927 in the name of Njoroge, dated 2nd May, 1992.f.Prior to the purchase of the property, his mother and agents had undertaken physical inspection of the property and taken photographs. Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 004” were photographs of the subject property taken during physical inspection on 17th September, 2012.g.Prior to the purchase of the property, he had completed due diligence by conducting an official title search at the Land Registry in Kwale. He stated that the Land Registrar, Joseph Kiprotich Koskei, had issued two Certificates of Official Search dated 17th April, 2012 and 17th September, 2012, both indicating Njoroge as the proprietor of the suit property.(Attached and marked as Exhibit FNM-005 was a copy of the Certificate of Official Search “A”/2927 in the name of Njoroge, dated 17th April, 2012, and “Exhibit FNM -006” was a Certificate of Official Search “A”/2927 in the name of Njoroge, dated 17th September, 2012.h.He had entered into a land purchase agreement with Njoroge on 25th October, 2012 to acquire title to the suit property. Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 007” was a copy of the Sale Agreement between Francis Musyoki and John Njoroge for Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2927, signed 24th October, 2012.)i.The sale agreement had been drafted by Counsel Patrick Tame Onjoro of the law firm of Messrs. Onjoro Abdulhamid Kipkemei & Advocates. Upon signing of the Sale Agreement, he and his mother had immediately paid a deposit of a sum of Kenya Shillings Six Million (Kshs. 6,000,000/=) by transferring the funds to a bank account held by Onjoro & Co Advocates, which were subsequently paid to Njoroge, thereby making him an equitable owner of the suit property.Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 008” was a copy of the bank receipt showing payment of a sum of Kenya Shillings Six million (Kshs. 6, 000, 000/=) in the sale transaction of plot “A”/2927.)j.The sale agreement he had entered with Njoroge allowed him to take unlimited access to the suit property immediately upon signing.See Paragraph 4 of the Sale Agreement, “Exhibit FNM -008”.k.On or around November, 2012, security guards had appeared on the suit property preventing access to the same.l.In early January, 2013, his family and he had investigated to determine who had hired the security guards. They learned that a person named Abdalla Kombo Abdalla (hereinafter “Abdalla,” the 1st Defendant herein) claimed to have hired the security guards with the intention to sell the suit property. They obtained copies of an alleged Title Deed and Green Card in the name of Abdalla Kombo Abdalla. Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 009” was a copy of the Title Deed to property “A”/2927 in the name of Abdalla, dated 31st March, 1998 and “Exhibit FNM – 010” was a copy of a Green Card to property “A”/2927 in the name of Abdalla, dated 31st March 1998.m.Upon investigation of the authenticity of the Title Deed and Green Card in the name of Abdalla at the Land Registry office in Kwale, he learned that the Deed and Green Card in the name of Abdalla (see “Exhibit FNM-010”) had multiple errors indicating the documents were fraudulent, among them:i).The same signature for the Land Registrar from years 1979 to 1998 using the exact same pen, which was impossible as this was a span of 19 years.ii).There was no stamp of the Land Registrar.iii).There were entries in the wrong boxes as follows:i.Parcel number entered as 28.ii.Approximate area entered as 2927 Haa.On 2nd January, 2013, the 5th Defendant herein, then the Deputy Land Registrar in Kwale, had issued another Certificate of Official Search indicating Njoroge was the proprietor of the suit property and that restrictions were entered on the land parcel file to prevent unauthorized transactions.Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM-011” was a copy of the Certificate of Official Search issued by the 5th Defendant indicating Njoroge was proprietor of the suit property.)b.On 22nd January, 2013, John Maina Njoroge filed a suit, ELC 12 of 2013, against Abdalla Kombo Abdalla, the Land Registrars in Kwale, and G4S Security Ltd, alleging they were attempting to disinherit him using fraudulent documents.Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 012” was a copy of the Plaint in case of: “ELC No. 12 of 2013 - John Maina Njoroge – Versus - Abdalla Kombo Abdalla and 2 others”, dated 22nd January, 2013, filed by Njoroge.c.On 31st January, 2013, this Honourable Court issued Orders pursuant to a Notice of Motion application filed by Njoroge seeking to prevent Abdalla and the Land Registrars in Kwale from undertaking any transactions on the suit property until ownership was determined in ELC No. 12 of 2013. The Court Orders were served on Abdalla on 2nd February, 2013 and on the Land Registrars in Kwale on 5th February, 2013.Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 013” was a copy of the Motion in case ELC No. 12 of 2013 filed by John Maina Njoroge seeking to prevent Abdalla and the Land Registrars in Kwale from undertaking any transactions on the suit property. Exhibit FNM-014 was a copy of the Supporting Affidavit of John Maina Njoroge. Exhibit FNM-015 was a copy of the Orders of the High Court in case ELC No. 12 of 2013, dated 31st January, 2013, served on Abdalla on 8th February, 2013 and on the Land Registrars in Kwale on 5th February, 2013.)d.On 20th May, 2013, Njoroge informed him that he had retained the law firm of Messrs. Ndegwa, Muthama, Katisya & Associates to represent him in the claim against Abdalla. Njoroge then convinced him to sign an addendum to the sale agreement, putting it in abeyance pending the resolution of case ELC No. 12 of 2013.Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 016” was a copy of the Addendum to Sale Agreement between Francis Musyoki and John Maina Njoroge, signed 20th May 2014.)e.In the course of investigating further the alleged fraud by Abdalla, he discovered that another entity, Socaf & Co Ltd, also held title to the suit property. He learnt that:-i.Socaf & Co Ltd held title to the suit property since year 1979. (Attached and marked as Exhibit FNM-017 was a letter authored by Mr. Adeel Haq, solicitor of Socaf & Co Ltd, dated 21st May 2013, addressed to Ndegwa Muthama Katisya & Associates, indicating that Socaf & Co Ltd held a Title Deed to the suit property since year 1979. “Exhibit FNM – 018” was a copy of a Land Certificate in the name of Socaf & Co Ltd issued on 9th August, 1979.ii.Socaf & Co Ltd had proper root of title evidenced by Msambweni Adjudication era records tracing how it became proprietor of the suit property prior to issuance of the first title. Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM - 019 to 023” were adjudication records showing the sub - division and subsequent transfer of Plot “A”/2927 to Socaf & Co Ltd.)iii.The shareholders of Socaf & Co Ltd were shown in the original Green Card as Flavio Sogno, Franca Sogno, and Dino Sogno. Flavio Sogno was deceased in the year 1995, while Franca and Dino Sogno, of Italian origin, were no longer in the country, creating the impression of an absentee landlord. Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 024” was a copy of the death certificate of Flavio Sogno. Exhibit FNM-024b was a copy of a Limited Grant of Letters of Administration in Succession Cause No. HC 2181 of 1995 to Franca Alieri Sogno issued on 18th September, 1995.iv.Socaf & Co Ltd applied for a Change of User from agricultural to residential/commercial, surrendered its Absolute Title, and was issued with a new Leasehold Title registered on 23rd March, 2001. Attached and marked as “Exhibits FNM - 025 to 030” were documents evidencing the change of user and issuance of Leasehold Title.v.Socaf & Co Ltd had been engaged in prior litigation regarding proprietorship of the suit property, and the Court had issued judgment confirming Socaf & Co Ltd as the authentic proprietor.Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 045” was a copy of the judgment in HCC 753 of 2006 at Mombasa, delivered on 27th July, 2007.vi.Socaf & Co Ltd had been paying land rates to the Kwale County Council and Government since the year 1979, with no other party involved.Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 032” were copies of demand notices and receipts for land rates from year 2010 to 2017.vii.Socaf & Co Ltd had physical possession of the property since year 1979 through caretakers, with a caretaker’s house constructed prior to the Affiant’s inspection. This house was later remodeled in year 2017 after a fire.Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 033” was a Photograph of the caretaker’s house after remodeling in year 2017.viii.A former caretaker of the property hired by Socaf & Co Ltd had colluded with John Maina Njoroge to show the property as if it were for sale, which triggered Socaf & Co Ltd to hire Security Group Limited to guard the property and appoint a new caretaker.ix.Socaf & Co Ltd had hired Security Group Ltd to guard the property from November, 2012 to May, 2013.Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 034” was a letter authored by Security Group Ltd dated 22nd May, 2013 confirming guards had been posted at the suit property on request of Adeel Haq, not Abdalla.x.It became apparent to the Affiant that Abdalla Kombo Abdalla had inserted himself into the picture in collusion with Njoroge and the Land Registrars in Kwale in an attempt to distract him and hinder discovery of the authentic claim of Socaf & Co Ltd, but this had failed.a.After he realized that the actions of Njoroge and Abdalla were fraudulent, sometime around March, 2014, he retained the law firm Robson Harris & Co Advocates (Hereinafter as “Robson Harris”) to represent him in initiating a suit against Njoroge, Abdalla, and the Land Registrars in Kwale in regard to the suit property. He had provided to Messrs Robson Harris relevant documents related to extensive investigations on Njoroge, Abdalla, and the Land Registrars in Kwale on 6th and 12th March, 2013.Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 035” was a copy of the retainer with Robson Harris & Advocates dated 13th March, 2024 acknowledging receipt of the extensive documentary evidence from the Affiant on 6th and 12th March, 2013 in regard to the fraud. “Exhibit FNM – 036” was a copy of the payment receipt of a retainer to Robson Harris dated 14th March, 2024 to represent the Affiant in regard to the fraud.b.In or around late March, 2014, Robson Harris advised him:a.That Socaf & Co Ltd was no longer registered with the Register of Companies and therefore it was questionable whether it had a valid claim to the title of the suit property.b.The Affiant should seek to defeat the title of Socaf & Co Ltd by supporting the title of Njoroge and by claiming to be an “innocent purchaser of value without notice of fraud.”a.Soon thereafter, on 2nd April, 2014, Robson Harris informed him that they had allegedly carried out transactions in regard to the suit property, this time using the Title Deed in the name of Abdalla Kombo Abdalla to allegedly transfer the suit property from him to Samchi Telecommunications Ltd (the Plaintiff herein) on 26th June, 2013, and then registered a Charge on the Title of the suit property to Jamii Bora Bank Ltd on 7th March, 2014.Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 037” was a copy of the letter dated 2nd April, 2014 from Robson Harris to the Affiant informing him of the alleged series of transactions between the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant herein, and Jamii Bora Bank Ltd.b.He investigated the alleged transaction between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant and found evidence that the alleged transactions were fraudulent, and that the Plaintiff herein knowingly participated in fraud aided by his former advocates, Robson Harris.c.After it was discovered that John Maina Njoroge did not have good title to the properties identified as Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2894 and “A”/2927, he and his Co- Plaintiffs Andrew Muia Musyoki Ngau and Margaret Mbulwa Ngau instituted a suit against him, Abdalla, Robson Harris & Advocates, and others for recovery of damages in the suit:- “Kwale ELC 159 of 2021 (formerly Mombasa ELC 107 of 2014), Andrew Muia Musyoki, Francis Musyoki Ngau & Margaret Mbulwa Ngau – Versus - Joseph Kiprotich Koskei, Evans Nyatigo Marwanga & 18 others”, filed on 16th May, 2014.d.The Plaint in the civil case:- “Kwale ELC 159 of 2021 (formerly Mombasa ELC 107 of 2014 - alleged that various Defendants conspired to defraud him and his co-plaintiffs by the sale of Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2894 and “A”/2927 using fraudulent titles in the name of Njoroge, and further conspired to conceal the authentic ownership of Socaf & Co Ltd, and furthermore conspired to add complexity to litigation by additional fraudulent transactions between Abdalla, Samchi Telecommunications Ltd (the Plaintiff herein), and Jamii Bora Bank Ltd in an attempt to derail justice and cause severe economic harm to him and his co-plaintiffs.Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 038” was a copy of the Plaint in Kwale ELC 159 of 2021 (formerly Mombasa ELC 107 of 2014).)e.All Defendants sued herein in this suit, together with the law firm representing the Plaintiff herein, Robson Harris, were sued as Defendants in the aforementioned suit.f.In May 2014, he notified Socaf & Co Ltd of the series of fraudulent transactions and supplied to Socaf & Co Ltd evidence on the fraudulent actions of the various parties.g.On 12th February, 2015, Socaf & Co Ltd filed a lawsuit – “Kwale ELC 4 of 2021 (formerly Mombasa ELC 25 of 2015), Socaf & Company – Versus - John Maina Njoroge & Others”, seeking to be declared the authentic owner of the suit property Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2927 and seeking the cancellation of the title deeds of John Maina Njoroge, Abdalla Kombo Abdalla, and Samchi Telecommunications Ltd, as well as cancellation of the charge of the suit property by Samchi Telecommunications Ltd to Jamii Bora Bank.(Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 031” was a copy of the original Plaint in the civil case of:- “Kwale ELC 4 of 2021 (formerly Mombasa ELC 25 of 2015), filed 12th February, 2015. “Exhibit FNM – 039” was a copy of the Further Amended Plaint in Kwale ELC No. 4 of 2021.)h.He participated in Kwale ELC No. 4 of 2021 as the Interested Party and supported the title of Socaf & Co Ltd by providing evidence used by Socaf & Co Ltd in the trial and in making written submissions to the Court explaining the fraud and proof.i.The ownership of the suit property was determined in “Kwale ELC No. 4 of 2021 (formerly MSA ELC 25 of 2015), Socaf & Company – Versus - John Maina Njoroge & Others”, wherein the Court upheld the ownership of the suit property to Socaf & Company. The Affiant deponed that the title deeds of John Maina Njoroge, Abdalla Kombo Abdalla, and Samchi Telecommunications Ltd were deemed fraudulent and acquired via unprocedural means and hence were cancelled. The charge on the title of the suit property previously recorded in favor of Jamii Bora Bank Ltd was cancelled, and the due diligence of Samchi and Robson Harris & Advocates was impugned.j.He had thereafter learned that the Plaintiff herein filed this suit ELC No. 29 of 2023 at Kwale, jointly alleging falsely that it was an innocent purchaser and that it conducted proper due diligence. The Affiant averred that the Plaint prays for Judgment against the Defendants in this suit jointly and severally.k.The Plaintiff herein had listed the issues to be determined in this suit as inter alia: “(1) Whether there was a valid Sale Agreement between the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant,” and “(2) Whether the Plaintiff conducted proper due diligence with respect to the purchase of all that property known as Kwale/Msambweni A/2927 measuring 2.8 Ha,” facts which the Affiant intended to challenge.Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 040” was an excerpt of the Plaintiff’s List of Issues filed at Pages 66 – 67 of the Plaintiff’s Documents.)l.He was a relevant party to this suit because:a.He held an equitable interest in the Title of the suit property, being an innocent purchaser.b.Chronologically, his interest preceded that of the Plaintiff herein, having been acquired prior to the Plaintiff entering into a sale contract with Abdalla for the same subject property.c.He had interacted with the 1st Defendant herein, Abdalla, when Abdalla presented his alleged title deed dated 31st March 1998 and claimed that he had hired Security Group Limited intending to sell the property.d.He challenged the legality of the transaction between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff’s claims to have conducted proper due diligence.e.The Affiant deponed that he had evidence showing that the Plaintiff herein knowingly participated in land title fraud or ignored obvious signs of fraud in relation to the title in the name of Abdalla. The Plaintiff herein omitted to inform this Honourable Court of the relevant facts which included, but were not limited to:i.That the alleged title deed of Abdalla Kombo looked fraudulent on its face. The Plaintiff did not undertake reasonable due diligence in regard to this document.ii.That the alleged Green Card naming Abdalla as proprietor had multiple errors showing that the Green Card was fraudulent. The Plaintiff did not undertake reasonable due diligence in regard to review of this document.iii.That Abdalla was not in physical possession of the suit property at the alleged time of the transaction, as security guards had been posted on the suit property by Socaf & Co Ltd. The Plaintiff did not undertake reasonable due diligence to determine who had hired the security guards.iv.That John Maina Njoroge had filed a suit, ELC 12 of 2013, against Abdalla Kombo Abdalla, the Land Registrars in Kwale, and G4S Security Ltd, dated 22nd January 2013, alleging they were attempting to disinherit him using fraudulent documents. The filing of this lawsuit was common knowledge among the locals in Msambweni. The Plaintiff did not engage in reasonable due diligence by interviewing neighbors or the local chief, which would have revealed an ongoing lawsuit challenging Abdalla’s title claim.v.That the Court had issued orders in ELC 12 of 2013 at Mombasa on 31st January 2013, served upon the Land Registrar in Kwale and Abdalla, preventing all transactions on the Title of the suit property. The alleged transactions between Abdalla, Samchi Telecommunications, and Jamii Bora Bank Ltd were in breach of Court Orders and thus null and void. (See “Exhibit FNM – 015”.vi.That obtaining a Rates Clearance Certificate was a statutory requirement under Section 38(1) of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012 prior to registration of a land transfer at the time the transfer from the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff was alleged to have occurred in June 2013. The “Special Conditions” section on the sale agreement between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant required the vendor to obtain a “Rates Clearance Certificate valid for at least fourteen (14) days (if any).” The Plaintiff and Robson Harris completed the alleged transfer without obtaining a rates demand notice or a Rates Clearance Certificate. Reasonable due diligence would have revealed that Abdalla could not obtain a Rates Clearance Certificate in his name, as Socaf & Co Ltd was the payer of land rates.vii.That the Affiant participated in ELC No. 4 of 2021 and knew from the court proceedings and evidence that a former Land Registrar in Kwale, one Harrison Stephen Wasiwasi Musumia, testified that he recalled the change of user application by Socaf & Co Ltd from agricultural to residential and a lease registered in the name of Socaf & Co Ltd on 23rd March, 2001. He testified that the Green Card of Abdalla was a forgery of his signature.Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM - 041” was the witness statement of Harrison Stephen Wasiwasi Musumia in ELC No. 4 of 2021.viii.That once the parcel file of the suit property was converted from absolute title to leasehold, it became impossible for Abdalla to transmit a valid absolute title to Samchi Telecommunications Ltd.ix.That Abdalla had an initial known Green Card showing him as proprietor starting on 31st March 1998, which bore signs of obvious fraud. The Plaintiff, Robson Harris, and the Land Registrars in Kwale colluded to create a new forged Green Card in the transfer of title from Abdalla to the Plaintiff, alleging Abdalla’s proprietorship commenced on 2nd July, 1979 in a bid to obscure the mistakes indicating fraud on the initial forged Green Card. This new Green Card was discrepant from the Title Deed in Abdalla’s name dated 31st March, 1998 and from the Msambweni Adjudication record, which showed the property adjudicated to Socaf & Co Ltd. The new Green Card showed signs of erasure and altered entries. This document demonstrated the Plaintiff’s willful participation in altering documents to its benefit and indicated that the Plaintiff was not an innocent purchaser.Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 042” was a copy of the new forged Green Card in the name of Abdalla and the Plaintiff.x.That Socaf & Co Ltd had won prior litigation regarding proprietorship of the suit property in HCC 753 of 2006 at Mombasa, with Judgment delivered on 27th July, 2007 confirming Socaf & Co Ltd as the authentic proprietor.(See “Exhibit FNM – 045”.xi.That the Plaintiff falsely alleged in the Plaint that it had paid Stamp Duty. On the contrary, the Plaintiff admitted during cross-examination in ELC No. 4 of 2021 that it did not pay Stamp Duty. Payment of Stamp Duty required a valuation report from a government valuer, which the Plaintiff had not filed, nor had it filed a receipt showing Stamp Duty paid.xii.That the Affiant was aware that the Plaintiff did not take vacant physical possession of the suit property, as physical possession at the alleged close date of the transaction in June, 2013 was with Socaf & Co Ltd, who had a caretaker stationed at the caretaker’s house on the property.xiii.That for a period of time, the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant, and the Affiant were co-represented by Robson Harris. The Affiant had supplied to Robson Harris information regarding the fraudulent nature of Abdalla’s claim. (See “Exhibit FNM - 035”, a letter from Robson Harris acknowledging receipt of extensive evidence from the Affiant on 6th and 12th March, 2014.)The Plaintiff charged the title of the suit property to Jamii Bora Bank Ltd on 7th March, 2014 and received money disbursed on 24th April 2014. The willingness of the Plaintiff and Robson Harris to proceed with these transactions, knowing the falsity of Abdalla’s root of title, indicated the Plaintiff’s unclean hands.Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 043” was a loan statement from Jamii Bora Bank Ltd indicating it disbursed a sum of Kenya Shillings Twenty Million (Kshs. 20,000,000/=) to the Plaintiff on 24th April, 2014.)xiv.That the Plaintiff claimed it paid valuable consideration to Abdalla and attached in its Document List various bank applications to transfer funds and a cheque in Abdalla’s name. The Affiant deponed that the documents submitted were partly illegible, obscuring assessment of authenticity. No receipts or bank statements from financial institutions were attached to confirm funds transferred to Abdalla. Accounting was merely provided by Robson Harris on its own software. The Affiant averred that Abdalla did not receive the sum of Kenya Shillings Fourty Nine Million (Kshs. 49,000,000/=) from either the Plaintiff or Robson Harris, and that this was merely a paper transaction with a cheque drawn but not deposited, and no valuable consideration paid.Attached and marked as “Exhibit FNM – 044” were copies of alleged bank transfer applications, a cheque in Abdalla’s name, and trust account accounting by Robson Harris, but no receipts or bank statements showing actual payment of a sum of Kenya Shillings Fourty Nine Million (Kshs. 49, 000, 000/=).xv.The Plaintiff claimed damages “for due diligence, registration fees and disbursements” amounting to a sum of Kenya Shillings One Million Sixty One Thousand and Fouty (Kshs. 1,061,040.00/=). The Affiant challenged the alleged sum, as no accounting of the alleged disbursements was provided.f.The Plaintiff’s omission of facts and evidence created a risk that this Court could be misled to reach a Judgment conflicting with the Judgment in ELC No. 4 of 2021 wherein full evidence was presented.g.Judgment issued in ELC No. 4 of 2021 directed that records related to the cancelled title deeds in the names of Abdalla, Samchi, and Njoroge be expunged so that the land parcel file reflected only the authentic claim by Socaf & Co Ltd. The Affiant averred that this meant that calling the previous and current Land Registrars would likely be insufficient to bring before this Court important evidence necessary to show the fraud perpetrated by the Plaintiff and its advocates, Robson Harris.h.The evidence in his possession was necessary to ensure that this Honourable Court was fully informed about the relevant facts and would assist the Court in arriving at an informed and just decision on the claims herein.i.The evidence in his possession was not addressed or capable of being addressed by the primary parties presently in the suit.j.The relief sought by the parties in this suit would impact the proceedings in Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021 (formerly Mombasa ELC No. 107 of 2014) since there were similar defendants, transactions, and events, including the Attorney General of Kenya, John Maina Njoroge, Abdalla Kombo Abdalla, and the Land Registrars in Kwale.k.Disposing of the suit in his absence would create a substantial risk of conflicting or inconsistent findings of fact in regard to transactions and series of events and might impede his ability to protect his interest in the suit property in Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021 (formerly Mombasa ELC No. 107 of 2014).a.He believed that granting the prayers in the application would facilitate fair and orderly administration of justice for the purposes of determining the real facts and issues between the parties.b.He swore the affidavit in support of his Application.c.What he had deponed to hereinabove was true to the best of his knowledge, save as to matters deponed to on information sources whereof had been disclosed, and matters deponed to on belief, the grounds whereupon had been given. III. The Response 5.The Plaintiff responded to the Application through a 27 Paragraphed Replying Affidavit sworn on 6th March, 2026 by HENRY MACHARIA, an advocate of the High Court of Kenya and in conduct of the matter on behalf of the Plaintiff herein averred as follows that:-a.He had read and understood the meaning and import of the Applicant’s Notice of Motion Application dated 17th December ,2025 and the Supporting Affidavit sworn on even date by Francis Ngau Musyoki.b.He swore the Affidavit in opposition to the said Notice of Motion Application and wished to state as hereunder:c.The Plaintiff herein, pursuant to the Judgment delivered by Honourable Lady Justice A. E. Dena in “Kwale ELC No. 4 of 2021: Socaf & Company Limited – Versus - James Maina Njoroge & 5 Others; Francis Ngau Musyoki (Interested Party)”, approached this Honourable Court vide the Plaint dated 4th April, 2023 seeking reliefs against the Defendants for the loss occasioned in the purchase and consequent transactions of the suit property herein.d.The Hon. Lady Justice A. E. Dena, upon considering the pleadings filed by the respective parties in the aforementioned suit (including the Applicant herein), held that Socaf & Company Limited were the rightful proprietor of Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2927, the suit property herein.e.The decision in Kwale ELC No. 4 of 2021 was to the effect that all other entries and Green Cards made in the register of the suit property herein were to be effectively cancelled and/or deleted.f.Of noteworthy, Lady Justice A. E. Dena, in considering the applicability of the documents and statements relied upon by the Interested Party therein, being the Applicant herein, held as follows:“My determination herein has not been influenced by the Interested Party’s documents and this court had the benefit of the other lists of documents produced by the parties herein including the parcel file documents. I’m alive to the fact that the contest is between the Plaintiff and the Defendants herein and the Interested Party will have his day in ELC No. 107 of 2014 (Now Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021). I also see no justification to arrest the Judgment herein and my reasons are substantiated in the ruling this court delivered on 25/10/21 which had not been appealed against.”g.The import of the aforementioned Judgment was that any aggrieved party was at liberty to agitate their grievances, including but not limited to seeking compensation from the various dubious vendors involved, from the available forums.h.It was on this background that the Plaintiff instituted the instant suit against the Defendants seeking specific orders as against them.i.Being the dominus litis of the case, nothing would have stopped the Plaintiff from joining and/or including the Applicant herein as a Defendant, Interested Party, or in whatever capacity should they have deemed fit to do so at the beginning.j.At the onset, the Applicant’s Application lacked clarity and precision as he was uncertain under what level he wished to participate in the instant suit and left the determination to the discretion of this Honourable Court.k.Further, the Plaintiff was alive to the proceedings before this Honourable Court by the Applicant herein, seeking inter alia declaration of the rightful proprietorship of the properties therein, including the subject property in the suit:- “Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021: Francis Ngau Musyoki & 2 Others – Versus - Joseph Kiprotich Kosgei & 16 Others”.l.It was the Plaintiff’s contention that the Applicant’s suit and interests were well laid out in “Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021: Andrew Muia & Francis Ngau Musyoki & Another – Versus - Joseph Kiprotich Kosgei & 16 Others”, which was still pending before this Honourable Court.m.The issues and reliefs sought in Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021 by the Applicant herein were patently different and in no way influenced nor were influenced by the proceedings in this suit.n.In any event, the reliefs sought in the instant suit had no bearing on the Applicant, whose case was still pending before this Court in Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021.o.It was worth noting that both suits had been placed before the same Court, before Honourable Justice L. L. Naikuni, and had proceeded concurrently, noting the different parties, save for two Defendants, issues, and reliefs sought therein.p.The instant suit was proceeding with the Defendant’s hearing set to be heard on 28th January, 2026, when the Applicant filed his application, causing the hearing date to be vacated to allow determination of the instant application.q.The application was clearly a ploy to derail the conclusion of the matter, which had been before the Court since year 2023.r.The Applicant had and continued to pursue his interests in a wholly separate suit and contended that the decision herein bore no interest to the Applicant’s case.s.Were the application to be allowed, the suit would be further delayed in allowing the Applicant to file his documents and be heard in the matter, which documents as annexed in the Supporting Affidavit were already before this Honourable Court for determination in Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021.t.The proprietorship of the suit property had already been substantially determined and the Plaintiff’s claim herein was one borne from the negligence and fraud occasioned by the Defendants in the transaction.u.It was worth noting that neither the Plaintiff nor the 1st Defendant were parties or had ever been joined as parties to Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021.v.The Applicant could not purport to arrest the proceedings before this Honourable Court in such a manner as to derail the expeditious and logical conclusion of the Plaintiff’s suit.w.Contrary to the prayers of the Applicant, he could not be joined in this suit as a Defendant noting that the Plaintiff had no cause of action nor prayed for any reliefs against the Applicant.x.The joinder of the Applicant would be improper noting that the issues he sought to raise were impertinent to this suit.y.In view of the foregoing, the instant application was misconceived, devoid of merit, and an abuse of the court process, and in the premise ought to be dismissed.z.What was deponed to herein was true to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief. IV. Submissions 6.While all the parties were present in Court, the Court directed that the Notice of Motion application dated 17th December, 2025 be canvassed by way of written submission. 7.Unfortunately, by the time of penning down this Ruling, the Honourable Court, from both the Judiciary CTS Portal and the ELC Registry, was only able to access the Submissions by the Applicant. Pursuant to that, it has proceeded to deliver the Ruling on its own merit on 29th June, 2026 by Court accordingly. A. The Written Submissions by the 7th Proposed Defendant 8.The 7th Proposed Defendant through the Law firm of Messrs. Mwangi Kihira & Company filed their written submissions dated 25th March, 2026. Mr. Kihira Advocate commenced his submissions by informing Court that the Applicant had filed an Application seeking the above stated orders. The Learned Counsel submitted that the Respondent/Plaintiff opposed this Application vide a Replying Affidavit sworn on 6th March, 2026. 9.On the case of the Applicant’s case. The Learned Counsel held that the Applicant holds an interest in the suit property KWALE/MSAMBWENI “A”/2927 having entered into a sale agreement dated 12th October, 2012 with one, JOHN MAINA NJOROGE who at the time held a title deed to the suit property. The Plaintiff herein (Samchi Telecommunications Ltd) alleges it purchased the same suit property from the 1st Defendant herein (Abdalla Kombo Abdalla), who also held a title of the suit property. The ownership of the suit property has been determined by a Judgment delivered in the suit “KWALE ELC No 4 of 2021 [formerly MSA ELC 25 of 2015] Socaf & Company - Versus - John Maina Njoroge & Others’ wherein the Plaintiff herein, 1st to 4th Defendants and the Applicant were party and the Court upheld ownership of the suit property to another party, Socaf & Company Ltd. Further, in judgment delivered in the case of:- “KWALE ELC 4 of 2021 [formerly MSA ELC 25 of 2015], this Honorable Court cancelled the title deeds of the Plaintiff herein, 1st Defendant herein and John Maina Njoroge as having been obtained via unprocedural and fraudulent means.The Plaintiff herein now advances an unmeritorious claim that it conducted proper due diligence with the respect of the subject property and further alleged it was deceived by the current Defendants who ought to compensate it for losses it suffered. 10.The series of transactions and events in this suit were the same as in “KWALE ELC 4 of 2021[formerly MSA ELC 25 of 2015]”. The Applicant has sued the 2nd to 6th Defendants in another suit “KWALE ELC 159 of 2021 [formerly MSA ELC 107 of 2014] Andrew Muia Musyoki, Francis Musyoki Ngau & Margaret Mbulwa Ngau – Versus - Joseph Kiprotich Koskei, Evans Nyatigo Marwanga & 18 Others” and had also sued Robson Harris Advocates, who during the material time relevant to this suit co-represented the Plaintiff, 1st Defendant and Applicant herein in regard to the series of transactions and events related to the suit property. 11.The Learned Counsel further averred that the Applicant, having participated in the transactions and having knowledge of the series of transactions between the Plaintiff herein and 1st to 6th Defendants herein, challenges the claim of the Plaintiff that it had a valid sale agreement with the 1st Defendant and that it was an innocent purchaser of the suit property. The Plaintiff herein had failed to disclose material facts to this Honorable Court including the several parties relevant to this suit including the Applicant and further the Plaintiff has failed to disclose facts that demonstrate the fraudulent nature of the sale agreement between the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant herein, including the interest of the Applicant, facts which were known or easily discoverable by the Plaintiff herein by reasonable due diligence at the time it engaged in various transactions with the defendants herein. 12.Since the Applicant had a discoverable interest in the suit property and the Applicant had another related ongoing suit in regard to the same series of transactions, the Applicant had an equitable interest to this suit as he shall be affected by the outcome of this suit and as such should be enjoined as a Defendant, interested party or amicus curie to fully participate in this suit. Only the Applicant could best advance its lawful interest particularized through its presence before this Honorable Court to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions touching on the proprietorship of the suit property and the issues whether the Plaintiff herein engaged in reasonable due diligence or alternatively acted negligently or in collusion with other parties in land titles fraud. 13.Unless the orders sought are granted, there is a real risk of two or more conflicting Judgments from this Honorable court on the same subject matter wherein the Applicant stands to suffer real and substantial risk that an irreversible decision may be made in this suit affecting his legal and financial interest in the pending suit “ELC 159 of 2021 (formerly ELC 107 of 2014 at Mombasa), without the Applicant being heard or participating. Conflicting decisions are likely to lead to a proliferation of more lawsuits and appeals. 14.On the Respondent’s case. The Learned Counsel submitted that in its Replying Affidavit, the Respondent/Plaintiff admits that it is well aware of the Applicant and John Maina Njoroge at the time it filed this suit due to joint participation on an earlier suit in regard to the ownership of the suit “KWALE ELC 4 of 2021 [formerly MSA ELC 25 of 2015] Socaf & Company Limited – Versus - John Maina Njoroge & 5 others”, but it elected not to include the Applicant. In its Replying Affidavit, the Plaintiff further admits that it is well aware of a related suit “KWALE ELC 159 of 2021 [formerly ELC 107 of 2014] Andrew Muia Musyoki, Francis Musyoki Ngau & Margaret Mbulwa Ngau -Versus - Joseph Kiprotich Koskei, Evans Nyatigo Marwanga & 18 others” wherein the Applicant is the 2nd Plaintiff, pending before this Honorable Court but alleges that the two suits are different, stating. 15.The issues and reliefs sought in “Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021: Andrew Muia & Francis Ngau Musyoki & Another – Versus - Joseph Kiprotich Kosgei & 16 Others” by the Applicant herein are patently different and in no way influence nor are influenced by the proceedings in this suit. In any event, the reliefs sought in the instant suit have no bearing on the Applicant, whose case was still pending before this Court in “Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021: Andrew Muia & Francis Ngau Musyoki & Another – Versus - Joseph Kiprotich Kosgei & 16 Others”. 16.They submitted that these allegations in the Replying Affidavit of the Plaintiff was not true and further states the Applicant shall be affected by the outcome of this suit because it related to a transaction that the Applicant was litigating about in KWALE ELC No. 159 of 2021 as follows:i.The Plaint in KWALE ELC No. 159 of 2021 alleged that multiple Defendants including the 1st to 6th Defendants herein engaged in fraudulent or negligent actions to harm the Applicant.ii.The law firm Messrs. Robson Harris Advocates (hereinafter “Robson Harris”), who are the current advocates of the Plaintiff, previously Co - represent the Applicant, Plaintiff and 1st Defendant. In KWALE ELC 159 of 2021, the Applicant has sued Robson Harris as the 16th Defendant for overseeing the sales transaction between the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant allegedly in a fraudulent or negligent unprocedural manner without proper due diligence and in breach of trust.iii.The Plaintiff herein and Robson Harris have attempted to paint a false picture that the Plaintiff and Robson Harris are innocent in the transaction, conducted proper due diligence but were deceived by other Defendants, who are also Defendants in KWALE ELC No. 159 of 2021.iv.If this suit was to proceed without the Applicant presenting his evidence, there is a risk he would be severely prejudiced when litigating in KWALE ELC No. 159 of 2021 due to conflicting facts, collateral estoppels and improper redirection of liability by Robson Harris to other Defendants. 17.On the legal arguments on joinder of parties. The Learned Counsel averred that in regard to the joinder of parties once a suit has been initiated by a Plaint, the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 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. 18.The Learned Counsel submitted that he meets the standard specified in Order 1 Rule 10 (2) that his “presence is necessary in order to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions in the suit” including but not limited to questions on:i.Whether the Plaintiff conducted proper due diligence and was misled or alternatively acted willfully blind or negligently in the transfer of title from the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff?ii.Whether the Plaintiff suffered actual damages as alleged in the Plaint or benefitted from the series of unprocedural transactions? 19.To buttress on this point, the Learned Counsel relied on the case of “Joseph Njau Kingori – Versus - Robert Maina Chege & 3 others [2002]eKLR”, where the Court outlined guiding principles that ought to be considered when enjoining a party to suit:…. the guiding principles when an intending party is to be joined are as follows:1.He must be a necessary party;2.He must be a proper party;3.In the case of the Defendant there must be a relief flowing from that Defendant to the Plaintiff;4.The ultimate order or decree cannot be enforced without his presence in the matter;5.His presence is necessary to enable the Court to effectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.’ 20.The Learned Counsel argued that he fulfilled the criteria as follows:a.The Applicant was a “necessary party” because he had an interest in the subject property. Chronologically, the interest of the Applicant preceded that of the Plaintiff herein.b.The Applicant was a “proper party” as he had a subsisting direct and substantive interest in the issues arising in the litigation and his presence was necessary for a complete and final decision on the questions involved in the proceedings and in particular the questions in regard to the due diligence of the Plaintiff.c.The Applicant met the criteria to be added as a Defendant because the Applicant had a competing interest to the interest of the Plaintiff and by virtue of that interest had interactions with multiple parties in regard to the suit property at the time relevant to this suit, including interactions with the land Registrars in Kwale and law firm Robson Harris. He was the proper person to put forward facts and supporting evidence that the Plaintiff did not engage in proper due diligence, the sale agreement between the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant was not validly executed, not duly stamped, and not supported by payment of valuable consideration.d.The ultimate decree of this Court could not be enforced without the presence of the Applicant since his presence was necessary to resolve the apparent dispute between the interest of the Plaintiff and Applicant. No other party could stand in for the interest of the Applicant;e.The Applicant was necessary to enable the Court to effectively adjudicate and settle all questions in the suit because:i.The Applicant had direct participation in various transactions related to the suit propertyii.The Applicant had knowledge and documentary evidence related to the various transactions involving the Plaintiff, 1st Defendant, Robson Harris and the Land Registrars in Kwale. This evidence would enable this court to make a just determination on the due diligence conducted by the Plaintiff and the procedure used to transfer title from the 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff and weigh whether the Plaintiff was an innocent participant in that transaction.iii.Judgment issued in KWALE ELC 4 of 2021 directed that records related to the cancelled title deeds in the names of Abdalla, Samchi and Njoroge be expunged so that the land parcel file reflected only the authentic claim by Socaf & Co Ltd. This meant calling the previous and current land registrars would likely be unable to bring before this court important evidence necessary to show the fraud perpetrated by the Plaintiff and its advocates Robson Harris.iv.The Plaintiff and other parties in this suit had concealed, suppressed or failed to provide important facts and evidence to this Court related to the improper actions and omissions of the Plaintiff, its agents, advocates and the Land Registrars in Kwale.v.The facts and evidence in the Applicants possession was not addressed or capable of being addressed by the primary parties presently in the suit.vi.Without the evidence of the Applicant, there was a risk that this Court could be misled to issue a Judgment conflicting with the Judgment in KWALE ELC 4 of 2021 which found that the Plaintiff held a fraudulently acquired title.vii.The relief sought by the parties in this suit will impact the proceedings in suit KWALE ELC No. 159 of 2021 since there was similar Defendants, transactions and events. Disposing of the suit in absence of the Applicant will create a substantial risk of conflicting or inconsistent findings of fact in regard to transactions and series of events and may impede the Applicant's ability to protect his interest in the suit property in KWALE ELC 159 of 2021 21.The provision of Order 1 Rule 10 ( 4 ) of the Civil Procedure Rule, 2010 requires that unless ordered otherwise by the Court, the Plaint must be Amended to add a necessary party as a Defendant.Order 1 Rule 10 (4)Where a Defendant is added or substituted, the Plaint shall, unless the court otherwise directs, be amended in such manner as may be necessary, and amended copies of the summons and of the Plaint shall be served on the new Defendant and, if the court thinks fit, on the original defendants. 22.The Plaint of the Plaintiff omitted multiple facts. On this, the Learned Counsel posited that these facts were known to the Plaintiff and its advocates Robson Harris in regard to Applicant's interest and interactions between John Maina Njoroge, the Applicant, 1st Defendant, Robson Harris and the land registrars in Kwale including but not limited to:-i.Failed to plead that one John Main Njoroge held a title deed to the suit property dated 2nd May, 1992.ii.Failed to plead that the Applicant, Francis Ngau Musyoki, entered into a Sale Agreement dated 12th October, 2012 with John Maina Njoroge to acquire title of the subject property.iii.Failed to plead that on 25th October, 2012 the Applicant paid a deposit to John Maina Njoroge in the amount of a sum of Kenya Shillings Six Million (Kshs. 6,000,000.00/=) in regard to the sale transaction.iv.Failed to plead that the sale agreement been John Maina Njoroge the Applicant allowed the plaintiff to take physical possession of the suit property after payment of the depositv.Failed to plead that Socaf & Co Ltd also held a title to the suit property since 2nd August, 1979vi.Failed to plead that in or around November, 2012, Socaf & Co Ltd hired security guards posted on the suit property preventing access.vii.Failed to describe the facts related to physical inspection of the property prior to purchase the alleged transaction between the Plaintiff and 1st Defendant and the presence of security guards posted on the property.viii.Failed to plead what investigations the Plaintiff did in regard to the security guards.ix.Failed to plead that due to the Applicant raising questions to John Maina Njoroge in regard to the security guards posted on the property, John Maina Njoroge filed a lawsuit against 1st Defendant on 22nd January, 2013, MSA ELC No. 12 of 2013 claiming that the 1st Defendant was attempting to disinherited him and disrupt the sale of the suit property to the Applicant. Via an applicant dated 29th January, 2013 John Maina Njoroge obtained Court Orders in MSA ELC No. 12 of 2013 preventing any transaction using the title of Abdalla Kombo Abdalla, and this was widely known in the community.x.Failed to describe the procedure and outcome of the requirement to obtain a Rates Clearance Certificate. Obtaining a Rates Clearance Certificate was a statutory requirement in the provision of Section 38 (1) of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012 prior to registration of a land transfer at the time the transfer from 1st Defendant to the Plaintiff was alleged to have occurred in June, 2013. Further, “the Special Conditions” section on the sale agreement between the Plaintiff herein and 1st Defendant required the vendor to obtain a “rates Clearance Certificate valid for at least fourteen (14) days (if any);” (see Plaintiff’s List of Documents). The Plaint failed to plead whether the vendor, Plaintiff or Robson Harris obtained a rates demand notice or a Rates Clearance Certificate, which the Applicant was aware they did not obtain because Land Rates were billed to Socaf & Co Ltd, not the 1st Defendant.xi.Failed to explain how it was that 1st Defendant held a title deed dated 31st March, 1998, yet the green card in the transfer of title from Abdalla to the Plaintiff attached to the Plaintiff's Document list alleges the proprietorship of Abdalla commenced on 2nd July, 1979.xii.Failed to explain whether or not the Plaintiff took vacant possession at the completion of the agreement.xiii.Failed to plead facts related to the Charge on the title of the Plaintiff to Jamii Bora Bank Ltd for a sum of Kenya Shillings Fifty Million (Kshs 50,000,00/=), disbursement of funds and repayment of the Charge on the title of the Plaintiff to Jamii Bora Bank Ltd for a sum of Kenya Shillings Fifty Million (Kshs. 50,000,00/=) 23.In the Replying Affidavit, the Plaintiff states that “no relief flows from applicant to Plaintiff”. The Learned Counsel contended that this was merely because the Plaintiff omitted the Applicant and John Maina Njoroge from the current Plaint to paint a deceptive picture on the parties that had an interest in the suit property and their interactions, which it uses to seek a declaration that it was innocent and performed proper due diligence. Once the Plaint is properly amended to include the Applicant, there is potential relief flowing from the Applicant to the Plaintiff if the Court found that the Plaintiff conducted proper due diligence in regard to the interest of the Applicant and Socaf & Co Ltd. Vice versa, the Applicant would put forward a defence seeking to deny that the Plaintiff performed proper due diligence and put forward evidence that the Plaintiff and its agents engaged in a series of acts negligently or willfully blind to competing interests of other parties including the Applicant’s interest. 24.In the Replying Affidavit of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff alleged that he would be prejudiced by delay in determination of the case. The Applicant submitted that he had no intention to delay the hearing of this suit. Any delay to join the Applicant via this application was avoidable by the Plaintiff including the Applicant ab initio. The Applicant submitted that adding him to this suit will avoid multiplicity of suits. The Learned Counsel relied on the case of:- “Elijah Kipngeno Arap Bii – Versus - Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd [2013] eKLR”, where the Court emphasized that:-“The power of the court to allow amendments is to ensure that the substantive merits of the case are determined and that multiplicity of proceedings is avoided.” 25.The proposed amendments go to the heart of the dispute which was whether the Plaintiff and its agents performed proper due diligence, were innocent and were deceived or alternatively whether the Plaintiff was negligent or willfully blind to the interests of other parties. The amendments are necessary to bring all the relevant parties before the Court, capture the real question in controversy, ensure a just determination of the dispute and avoid a proliferation of new lawsuits seeking to correct prejudice that will be occasioned by omitting the Applicant. While enjoining of the Applicant as the 7th Defendant is the most efficient means to ensure administration of justice, the Court may also join the Applicant as an interested party, but being joined as an interested party brings limitations in regard to the full participation of the Applicant in these proceedings, and therefore the Applicant favors being joined as a defendant. 26.In regard to joiner of an interested party to proceedings, the Learned Counsel relied on “Petition No. 14 of 2014 Between Communications Commission of Kenya and 3 Others – Versus - Royal Media Services Ltd & 7 Others”, “Trust Society of Human Rights Alliance – Versus - Mumo Matemu & 5 others [2014] eKLR” and “Francis Kariuki Muruatetu & Another – Versus - Republic 5 others [2016] eKLR”. 27.In the case of:- “Petition No. 14 of 2014 Between Communications Commission of Kenya – Versus - 3 Others and Royal Media Services Ltd & 7 Others”, the Supreme Court adopted favorably the description of an “interested party” as one who has a stake in the matter before the court and further underscored that an interested party needs to be able to champion his or her cause, stating:(22)In determining whether the applicant should be admitted into these proceedings as an Interested Party we are guided by this Court’s Ruling in the Mumo Matemo case where the Court (at paragraphs 14 and 18) held:“[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…”(23)Similarly, in the case of Meme – Versus - 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.”(24)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? 28.The Learned Counsel asserted that the Applicant would be severely prejudiced if not joined to these proceedings. 29.In conclusion, the Learned Counsel submitted that Applicant sought:-a.An Order that the Applicant, Francis Musyoki be joined to this suit as the 7th Defendant;b.In the alternative, an Order that the Applicant, Francis Musyoki be joined to this suit as an interested party or amicus curie;c.An Order that the Plaintiff amend its plaint to add relevant facts related to the interest of the Applicant, physical inspection of the property, payment of land rates and obtaining of a Rates Clearance Certificate, whether it took vacant possession of the suit property at the close of the transaction and the charge of the suit property to Jamii Bora Bank Limited.d.An Order that any party be at liberty to file responding pleadings and documents within 14 days of service of the Amended Plaint;e.The costs of this application be provided for.f.Such further and other relief as this court may deem to be just and proper and may permit. V. Analysis and Determination 30.I have carefully considered the Notice of Motion application dated 17th December, 2025, the Supporting Affidavit sworn by Francis Ngau Musyoki, the Replying Affidavit sworn on 6th March, 2026 by Henry Macharia on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the written submissions, the cited authorities and the relevant provisions of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and statures thereof. 31.For the Honourable Court to arrive at an informed, fair, reasonable and Equitable decision, it has framed the following six ( 6 ) issues for its determination:-a.Whether this Honourable Court should grant leave to enjoin Francis Ngau Musyoki as a party to the proceedings, either as a Defendant, Interested Party, or Amicus Curiae, pursuant to Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.b.Whether the proposed joinder of the Applicant and the reopening of proceedings are legally tenable and necessary for the just, complete, and effectual determination of the dispute concerning ownership of Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2927;c.Whether the Applicant has demonstrated a sufficient and direct interest in the subject property to warrant his participation in the suit and whether his presence is indispensable for the Court to adjudicate all questions in controversy;d.Whether the proposed joinder and reopening of proceedings would occasion prejudice or undue delay to the Plaintiff or other Defendants, given that the matter had already proceeded to the hearing stage;e.Whether the Applicant’s participation would risk conflicting or inconsistent findings with the related proceedings in Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021 and whether joinder would promote judicial economy and avoid multiplicity of suits;f.Who should bear the costs of the present application. ISSUE No. a). Whether this Honourable Court should grant leave to enjoin Francis Ngau Musyoki as a party to the proceedings, either as a Defendant, Interested Party or Amicus Curiae, pursuant to Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. 32.Under this sub–title, the main issue herein is whether this Honourable Court should grant leave to enjoin Francis Ngau Musyoki as a party to the proceedings, either as a Defendant, Interested Party, or Amicus Curiae, pursuant to Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. 33.On the issue of joinder, The Black’s Law Dictionary defines “Interested Party” as:-“A party who has a recognizable stake (and therefore standing) in a matter.” 34.The stating point on the joinder is Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, which states 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 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.”[Emphasis mine] 35.This provision empowers the Court, at any stage of the proceedings, to order that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added. The discretion is wide but must be exercised judiciously. 36.This statutory discretion is reinforced by the provision of Article 159 (2)(b) and (d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which obliges courts to ensure justice is not delayed and to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities. Thus, the Constitution elevates substantive justice above rigid adherence to form, ensuring that courts are not constrained by technical omissions when the real issues in controversy demand full participation of all necessary parties. 37.With the passage of time, the High Court has expansively deliberated on this jurisprudence. Hence, this Court will not be re – inventing the wheel. It will proceed to make reference to just but a few of the precedents. To begin with, the case of:- “Kingori – Versus - Chege & 3 Others [2002] 2 KLR 243” the court provided the following guiding principles for joinder of a party to a suit:a.He must be a necessary party.b.He must be a proper party.c.In the case of the Defendant there must be a relief flowing from that Defendant to the Plaintiff.d.The ultimate order or decree cannot be enforced without his presence in the matter.e.His presence is necessary to enable the Court effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. 38.Similarly, in the case of “Meme – Versus - 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 question 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. 39.Further, in the case of:- “Departed Asians Property Custodian Board – Versus - Jaffer Brothers Limited [1999] 1 EA 55”, the Court held 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 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 of 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 interests of that person, and that it is desirable, for the 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 of a 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.” 40.Additionally, in the case of:-“Civicon Limited – Versus - Kivuwatt Limited and 2 Others [2015] eKLR” the court observed as follows:“Again the power given under the Rules is discretionary which discretion must be exercised judicially. The objective of these Rules is to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter, so that the dispute may be determined in their presence at the time without any protraction, or inconvenience and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Thus, any party reasonably affected by the pending litigation is a necessary and proper party, and should be enjoined…from the foregoing, it may be concluded that being a discretionary order, the court may allow the joinder of a party as a defendant in a suit based on the general principles set out in Order I rule 10 (2) bearing in mind the unique circumstances of each case with regard to the necessity of the party in the determination of the subject matter of the suit, any direct prejudice likely to be suffered by the party and the practicability of the execution of the order sought in the suit, in the event that the plaintiff should succeed. We may add that all that a party needs to do is to demonstrate sufficient interest in the suit, and the interest need not be the kind that must succeed at the end of the trial.” 41.The principle was echoed in case of:- “Mukira & 2 Others – Versus - County Government of Nyeri [2026] KEELC 2997 (KLR)”, where the Environment and Land Court reiterated that joinder is justified where the party’s participation is essential to resolve the real issues in controversy and to avoid multiplicity of suits. Also, in the case of:- “Lalji Shivji Kerai – Versus - Municipal Council of Eldoret [2014] KEELC 488 (KLR)”, the Court held that joinder should be allowed if it enables the Court to resolve the dispute comprehensively and avoid piecemeal litigation. 42.Further, in the case of:- “Zephir Holdings Limited – Versus - Mimosa Plantations Limited, Jeremiah Maztagaro and Ezekiel Misango Mutisya (2014) eKLR”, the Court stated that:“A proper party is one who is impleaded in the suit and qualifies the threshold of a Plaintiff or Defendant under Order 1 Rules 1 and 2 respectively, or as a third party or as an Interested Party and whose presence is necessary or relevant for the determination of the real matter in dispute or to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.” 43.Still on this issue, the Supreme Court in “Communications Commission of Kenya & 4 Others – Versus - Royal Media Services Ltd. & 7 others (2014) eKLR” stated:“An Interested Party is one who has a stake in the proceedings, though he or she was not a party to the cause ab initio. He or she is the 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 interests will not be well articulated unless he himself or she herself appears in the proceedings, and champions his or her cause. A party could be enjoined in a matter for the reason 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 of the rights of a party who would otherwise the adversely affected in law;iii.Joinder to prevent a likely course of proliferated litigation. 44.On the threshold to be reached by a party seeking joinder, the holding by Muriithi J. in the case of:- “Benjamin K Kipkulei – Versus - County Government of Mombasa & Another [2015] eKLR” is useful:-“….The test for joinder of a party as an interested party is not that the applicant must show a stake or interest that must prevail in the suit, as that is not possible before the full hearing of the matter; the applicant should demonstrate a legal interest that calls for hearing before a decision on the dispute before the court is adjudicated. In common judicial parlance, I would say that the applicant ought to show on ‘an arguable case’ basis that he has an interest recognized in the law and capable of protection….” 45.Whereas a joinder can be done at any stage. In the present matter, the Applicant asserts an equitable interest in Land Reference No. Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2927, arising from a sale agreement with John Maina Njoroge in 2012, and claims to have paid substantial consideration. He further contends that his interest chronologically precedes that of the Plaintiff, and that he possesses material evidence of alleged fraud involving the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff’s advocates. The Applicant also points to related litigation in civil case of:- Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021 and his participation in Kwale ELC No. 4 of 2021, where the Court upheld Socaf & Co Ltd’s proprietorship and cancelled titles in the names of Njoroge, Abdalla, and Samchi Telecommunications Ltd.The Plaintiff, on the other hand, resists joinder, arguing that the Applicant’s interests are already canvassed in ELC No. 159 of 2021, that his participation here would occasion delay, and that no relief is sought against him in the current plaint. The Plaintiff relies on the principle that joinder should not be used to derail proceedings or introduce extraneous issues. 46.The Court is further guided by the reasoning in the case of:- “Ngatiri – Versus - Sunshine Construction Company Limited & Another [2026] KEELC 3006 (KLR)”, where joinder was allowed to ensure that all parties with a direct interest in the land adjudication process were present before the Court, thereby avoiding fragmented litigation and ensuring that the decree issued was binding and enforceable against all relevant parties. 47.Applying these principles, the Applicant’s claim of an equitable interest, his prior involvement in related litigation, and his possession of evidence touching on the Plaintiff’s due diligence and alleged fraud, suggest that his presence may indeed assist the Court in effectually and completely adjudicating the dispute. However, the Court must balance this against the risk of prejudice and delay to the Plaintiff, who has already closed part of its case. 48.Therefore, the Court must determine whether the Applicant’s joinder is indispensable to the just resolution of the dispute, or whether his interests are sufficiently protected in the parallel proceedings. If the Court finds that his evidence is central to assessing the Plaintiff’s claim of due diligence and innocence, then joinder as a Defendant or Interested Party would be proper under the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 (2). 49.Conversely, if his participation would merely duplicate issues already before the Court in ELC No. 159 of 2021, then joinder may be declined to safeguard judicial economy and avoid undue delay. Issue No. b). Whether the proposed joinder of the Applicant and the reopening of proceedings are legally tenable and necessary for the just, complete, and effectual determination of the dispute concerning ownership of Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2927. 50.Under this sub – title, the main issue herein is whether the proposed joinder of the Applicant, Francis Ngau Musyoki, and the re - opening of proceedings are legally tenable and necessary for the just, complete, and effectual determination of the dispute concerning ownership of Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2927. The provision of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 is the statutory anchor for joinder. It empowers the Court, at any stage of the proceedings, to order that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary to enable it effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added. The provision is deliberately broad, reflecting the principle that litigation should not be conducted in fragments but should bring before the Court all persons whose rights or liabilities are directly affected by the outcome. 51.The jurisprudence in the case of:- “Joseph Njau Kingori – Versus - Robert Maina Chege & 3 Others [2002] eKLR” distilled guiding principles for joinder: The party must be a necessary or proper party. In the case of a Defendant, there must be relief flowing from or against them. The ultimate order or decree cannot be enforced without their presence. Their participation must be indispensable to a complete adjudication 52.The Applicant asserts that he holds an equitable interest in the suit property, having entered into a sale agreement with John Maina Njoroge in the year 2012 and paid substantial consideration. He contends that his interest chronologically precedes that of the Plaintiff, and that he possesses material evidence of alleged fraud involving the 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff’s advocates. He also points to related litigation in Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021 and his participation in Kwale ELC No. 4 of 2021, where the Court upheld Socaf & Co Ltd’s proprietorship and cancelled titles in the names of Njoroge, Abdalla, and Samchi Telecommunications Ltd. The Plaintiff resists joinder, arguing that the Applicant’s interests are already canvassed in ELC No. 159 of 2021, that his participation here would occasion delay, and that no relief is sought against him in the current plaint. The Plaintiff emphasizes that reopening proceedings at this stage would prejudice the expeditious disposal of the matter, which has been pending since 2023. 53.Kenyan courts have consistently held that joinder is not automatic; it must serve the ends of justice. In the case of:- “Departed Asians Property Custodian Board – Versus Jaffer Brothers Ltd (Supra)”, the Court emphasized that joinder is justified where a party’s presence is necessary to resolve all questions in controversy. Similarly, in “Meme – Versus - Republic (Supra)”, the High Court observed that joinder may be ordered to ensure complete settlement of questions, protect rights of parties who would otherwise be adversely affected, or prevent a proliferation of litigation. The Supreme Court in “Communications Commission of Kenya – Versus - Royal Media Services Ltd & 7 Others (Supra)” further underscored that an interested party is one who has a stake in the proceedings and whose rights may be affected by the outcome. 54.Applying these principles, the Applicant’s claim of an equitable interest, his prior involvement in related litigation, and his possession of evidence touching on the Plaintiff’s due diligence and alleged fraud, suggest that his presence may assist the Court in effectually and completely adjudicating the dispute. His evidence may illuminate whether the Plaintiff was an innocent purchaser or whether it knowingly participated in fraudulent transactions. However, the Court must balance this against the risk of prejudice and delay to the Plaintiff, who has already advanced its case, and the danger of duplicating issues already before the Court in ELC No. 159 of 2021. 55.The Court must therefore determine whether the Applicant’s joinder and reopening of proceedings are indispensable to the just resolution of the dispute. If the Court finds that his evidence is central to assessing the Plaintiff’s claim of due diligence and innocence, then joinder and reopening would be legally tenable and necessary under Order 1 Rule 10 (2). Conversely, if his participation would merely duplicate issues already before the Court in ELC No. 159 of 2021, then joinder may be declined to safeguard judicial economy and avoid undue delay. 56.The balance to be struck is between the Applicant’s right to be heard on matters directly affecting his equitable interest and the Plaintiff’s right to expeditious disposal of its claim. Ultimately, the Court’s discretion must be exercised to ensure that substantive justice is achieved, that all relevant facts are placed before the Court, and that the risk of conflicting judgments is minimized. Issue No. c). Whether the Applicant has demonstrated a sufficient and direct interest in the subject property to warrant his participation in the suit and whether his presence is indispensable for the Court to adjudicate all questions in controversy. 57.Under this sub‑title, the main issue herein is whether the Applicant had demonstrated a sufficient and direct interest in the subject property to warrant his participation in the suit and whether his presence was indispensable for the Court to adjudicate all questions in controversy. 58.The provision of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Rules, permits joinder where a person “ought to have been joined” or whose presence is necessary to enable the Court to “effectually and completely adjudicate” the questions in the suit. The established practical criteria are: (a) the person must be a necessary or proper party; (b) there must be a real, direct interest in the subject matter; (c) the ultimate decree must be unenforceable or incomplete without the person’s presence; and (d) joinder must serve the ends of justice rather than merely delay or multiply proceedings. 59.The Applicant produced a sale agreement (Oct 2012) with John Maina Njoroge for plot Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2927 and a bank receipt showing a sum of Kenya Shillings Six Million (Kshs 6,000,000/=) deposit paid into counsel’s trust account (Exhibits FNM ‑ 007; FNM ‑ 008). He produced official search certificates from the Kwale Land Registry (April and September, 2012) showing Njoroge as proprietor (Exhibits FNM ‑ 005; FNM ‑ 006).He gave evidence of physical inspection and photographs (Exhibit FNM ‑ 004), and of subsequent events showing competing claims (copies of title/green card in Abdalla’s name, ELC No. 12 of 2013 orders, and Socaf & Co Ltd records and judgment).He participated as an interested party in Kwale ELC No. 4 of 2021 and is a Plaintiff in Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021; he alleges Robson Harris acted for multiple parties and that material facts were concealed. 60.The Applicant’s documentary record (sale agreement; deposit receipt; official searches) establishes an equitable interest in the parcel that predates the Plaintiff’s alleged transaction with Abdalla. That is a direct proprietary stake, not a collateral or speculative interest. On the face of the material placed before the Court, the Applicant therefore satisfied the threshold of having a real and direct interest in the subject property.The Plaintiff’s case centrally raises whether it was an innocent purchaser and whether it conducted proper due diligence. The Applicant’s evidence, if accepted, directly bears on those questions (timing of searches, who had possession, existence of prior court orders, rates payments, alleged forged documents, and the role of counsel). Those are not peripheral facts; they go to the core factual matrix the Court must resolve to determine title and any compensatory claims. Without the Applicant’s evidence the Court risks deciding the Plaintiff’s due‑diligence claim on an incomplete record. 61.The Applicant’s active litigation in ELC No. 159 of 2021 and his participation in ELC No. 4 of 2021 create a real risk that a final determination in this suit, made without him, could produce inconsistent findings on materially identical transactions and parties. Joinder would reduce that risk and promote finality. 62.If the Court were to make declarations or orders affecting the title or the validity of transactions, the Applicant’s absence could render enforcement or the practical effect of the decree incomplete, particularly where competing equitable interests and charges are alleged. 63.The Plaintiff’s legitimate concern is that reopening or joinder at an advanced stage may delay disposal and prejudice parties who have prepared for hearing. The Court must weigh this against the Applicant’s right to be heard on matters that directly affect his proprietary interest.Some factual issues overlap with ELC No. 159 of 2021. Where the same issues are already fully and fairly ventilated in that parallel suit, the Court may limit joinder or tailor participation to avoid unnecessary duplication.If joinder were sought solely to delay or to relitigate settled matters, the Court should refuse. The record before the Court, however, shows active, specific documentary material and prior participation, not a mere fishing expedition. 64.The Court notes that its discretion under the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Rules should be exercised to secure substantive justice while protecting the trial timetable. A proportionate approach is appropriate: where the Applicant’s evidence is material to the Plaintiff’s central claims, the Court should allow participation but may impose conditions to limit prejudice (for example: time‑limited filing of pleadings and witness statements; restriction of issues the Applicant may raise to those directly connected to his equitable interest and the Plaintiff’s due diligence; and a timetable for any additional evidence). If I am satisfied that the Applicant’s evidence is largely duplicative of material already before ELC No. 159 of 2021, it may admit him as an interested party with limited rights of participation rather than full defendant status; conversely, where his evidence is unique and indispensable, full joinder as a defendant is justified. 65.On the material before the Court the Applicant has demonstrated a sufficient and direct interest in Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2927 to justify his participation in these proceedings. His documentary evidence and prior involvement in related litigation show that his presence is likely to be material to the Court’s assessment of the Plaintiff’s claim of being an innocent purchaser and to the determination of competing proprietary rights. 66.The Applicant’s presence is sufficiently necessary for the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate the principal questions in controversy, subject to the Court’s power to frame the scope of his participation so as to avoid undue delay or prejudice. Issue d). Whether the proposed joinder and reopening of proceedings would occasion prejudice or undue delay to the Plaintiff or other Defendants, given that the matter had already proceeded to the hearing stage. 67.Under this sub–title, the main issue herein is whether the proposed joinder of the Applicant and the reopening of proceedings would occasion prejudice or undue delay to the Plaintiff or other Defendants, given that the matter had already proceeded to the hearing stage. 68.The Court’s discretion under the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules is deliberately broad, but it is not unfettered. It must be exercised in a manner that balances the need for substantive justice with the constitutional imperatives of efficiency and fairness. I emphasize that the provision of Article 159 (2)(b) and (d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 require justice to be administered without delay and without undue regard to technicalities. Similarly, the provision of Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and Section 3 of the Environment & Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011 do impose a duty on the Court to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate, and affordable resolution of disputes. 69.Thus, while joinder may be necessary to ensure that all questions in controversy are fully adjudicated, the Court must guard against re - opening proceedings in a way that undermines the expeditious disposal of cases or prejudices parties who have already advanced their case. However, should the need arise, parties would be at liberty to invoke the provision of Section 146 ( 4 ) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 80 and Order 18 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 on recalling of any witnesses for further Cross examination and Re – Examination whatsoever. 70.The Applicant maintains that his joinder is indispensable to avoid conflicting judgments, given his equitable interest in the suit property and his involvement in related litigation (Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021 and Kwale ELC No. 4 of 2021). He argues that his evidence is material to the Plaintiff’s claim of due diligence and innocence, and that excluding him risks incomplete adjudication and a miscarriage of justice. 71.The Plaintiff contends that the application is a tactical maneuver to derail the conclusion of a matter that has been pending since 2023. It emphasizes that the Defendant’s hearing had already been scheduled for 28th January, 2026, and reopening proceedings would cause delay and prejudice. The Plaintiff further argues that the Applicant’s interests are already canvassed in ELC No. 159 of 2021, and that no relief is sought against him in the present plaint. 72.The Plaintiff has already prepared its case, and re - opening proceedings would inevitably cause delay. Witnesses may need to be recalled, pleadings amended, and timelines extended. This could prejudice parties who have been in litigation for several years and undermine the constitutional imperative of expeditious justice.The Applicant’s evidence is directly relevant to the Plaintiff’s claim of due diligence and innocence. His absence may leave the Court with an incomplete record, risking a judgment that conflicts with findings in ELC No. 159 of 2021.The Court must weigh the prejudice of delay against the risk of incomplete adjudication. Where the Applicant’s evidence is indispensable, the Court may mitigate prejudice by imposing strict timelines for filing pleadings and limiting the scope of issues he may raise. 73.The Court finds that while joinder and reopening of proceedings may occasion some delay, the Applicant’s presence is necessary to ensure that all questions in controversy are fully adjudicated. The prejudice to the Plaintiff can be mitigated through case management directions, including strict timelines for filing pleadings and limiting the scope of additional evidence. 74.Accordingly, the Court’s discretion under Order 1 Rule 10(2) should be exercised to allow joinder, but with safeguards to prevent undue delay and prejudice to the existing parties. ISSUE No. e). Whether the Applicant’s participation would risk conflicting or inconsistent findings with the related proceedings in Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021 and whether joinder would promote judicial economy and avoid multiplicity of suits 75.Under this sub–title, the main issue herein is whether the Applicant’s participation would risk conflicting or inconsistent findings with the related proceedings in Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021 and whether joinder would promote judicial economy and avoid multiplicity of suits. Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules empowers the Court to add a party whose presence is necessary to enable it to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. The guiding principle is that joinder should prevent fragmented litigation and inconsistent findings, while ensuring that all persons with a direct stake in the subject matter are heard. 76.Kenyan jurisprudence has consistently emphasized that joinder serves the ends of justice where exclusion of a party risks conflicting judgments or multiplicity of suits. In the case of:- “Meme – Versus - Republic (Supra)”, the Court observed that joinder may be ordered to ensure complete settlement of questions, protect rights of parties who would otherwise be adversely affected, or prevent a likely course of proliferated litigation. Similarly, in the case of:- “Elijah Kipngeno Arap Bii – Versus - Kenya Commercial Bank Limited [2013] eKLR”, the Court underscored that amendments and joinder should be allowed to ensure substantive merits are determined and multiplicity of proceedings avoided. 77.The Applicant argues that his equitable interest in Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2927, coupled with his active litigation in Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021, makes his participation indispensable. He contends that the issues in this suit overlap with those in ELC No. 159 of 2021, including allegations of fraudulent transactions involving Abdalla, Samchi Telecommunications Ltd, and Robson Harris Advocates. He warns that excluding him risks conflicting findings and collateral estoppel, which could prejudice his ability to protect his interest in the parallel proceedings. The Plaintiff maintains that the Applicant’s interests are already canvassed in ELC No. 159 of 2021, and that joinder here would cause delay without adding value. It argues that the issues and reliefs sought in ELC No. 159 of 2021 are distinct and do not influence or are influenced by the present suit. 78.The subject property, Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2927, is central to both suits. The Applicant has pleaded fraud and negligence against several of the same Defendants in ELC No. 159 of 2021. If this Court were to adjudicate the Plaintiff’s claim of due diligence and innocence without hearing the Applicant, there is a real risk of inconsistent findings on the same transactions and parties.Allowing joinder would consolidate evidence and ensure that all relevant facts are before the Court, reducing the likelihood of duplicative litigation and appeals. It would also prevent the Court from issuing a judgment that undermines or contradicts findings in ELC No. 159 of 2021.While joinder may cause some delay, the prejudice of conflicting judgments and multiplicity of suits outweighs the inconvenience. The Court can mitigate delay by imposing strict timelines for the Applicant’s pleadings and limiting his participation to issues directly connected to his equitable interest and the Plaintiff’s due diligence. 79.The Court finds that the Applicant’s participation is necessary to avoid conflicting or inconsistent findings with the related proceedings in Kwale ELC No. 159 of 2021. His joinder would promote judicial economy, ensure complete adjudication of all questions in controversy, and prevent multiplicity of suits. Accordingly, the Court’s discretion under the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Rules should be exercised in favor of joinder, subject to case management directions to minimize delay and prejudice. Issue No. f). Who should bear the costs of the present application. 80.It is well established that the issue of costs is at the discretion of the Court. Costs meant the award that a party is granted at the conclusion of a legal action or proceedings. The provision of Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 establishes the general principle that costs follow the event unless the Court, for good reason, orders otherwise. By the event it means the results or outcome of the legal action. Further, the provision of Section 27(2) further provides:“The court or judge may give interest on costs at any rate not exceeding fourteen per cent per annum, and such interest shall be added to the costs and shall be recoverable as such.” 81.This provision empowers the Court not only to award costs but also to grant interest on those costs, subject to a ceiling of 14% per annum. It is a recognition that costs are not merely compensatory but also restorative, ensuring that a successful litigant is not disadvantaged by the time taken to recover expenses incurred in litigation. 82.In the case of:- “Jasbir Singh Rai & 3 others – Versus - Tarlochan Singh Rai & 4 others [Supra]”, where the Supreme Court emphasized that costs are a natural consequence of litigation and should ordinarily be borne by the party whose conduct necessitated judicial intervention. 83.However, given that both parties contributed to the procedural complexity—the Plaintiff by omitting material facts in its Plaint, and the Applicant by filing late—the Court exercises its discretion to order that in all fairness and equity that each party shall bear its own costs of the application. VI. Conclusion and Disposition 84.In long analysis, this Honourable Court has carefully considered and weighed the interests of the parties, the affidavits and annexures filed, the submissions of Counsel, the applicable statutory framework, and the judicial authorities cited. In a nutshell, I proceed to order the following: –a.That the Court finds merit in the Applicant’s Notice of Motion dated 17th December 2025. Leave be and is hereby granted to enjoin Francis Ngau Musyoki as the 7th Defendant in these proceedings.b.That upon leave being granted, the Plaintiff shall amend its Plaint within 14 days of this date to reflect the joinder of the Applicant and serve the Amended pleadings on all parties.c.That thereafter the Applicant shall file his Defence and supporting documents within 14 days of service of the Amended Plaint, and his participation shall be strictly limited to issues directly connected to his equitable interest and the Plaintiff’s due diligence.d.That the Court further finds that the re - opening of proceedings to strictly allow the Applicant’s participation is legally tenable and necessary for the just, complete, and effectual determination of the dispute concerning ownership of Kwale/Msambweni “A”/2927.e.That the Court finds that the proposed joinder and re - opening will not occasion undue prejudice to the Plaintiff or other Defendants, as they retain full liberty to respond to the amended pleadings and cross‑examine the Applicants pursuant to the provision of Section 146 (4) of the Evidence Act, Cap. 80 and Order 18 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. Any inconvenience occasioned can be adequately compensated by costs.f.That there shall be a Pre – Trial Conference to be conducted on 7th October, 2026 pursuant to the provision of Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. There shall be a hearing on 4th November, 2026 before ELC No. 1 at Kwale preferably through Physical means.g.That each party shall bear its own costs of the present application. IT Is So Ordered Accordingly. RULING DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAM VIRTUAL MEANS, SIGNED AND DATED AT KWALE THIS 29TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.………………………………….HON. MR. JUSTICE L. L. NAIKUNIENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURTATKWALERuling delivered in the presence of:Mr. Daniel Disii, the Court Assistant.Mr. Macharia Advocate for the Plaintiff/Respondent.Mr. Mwangi Kihira Advocate for the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th & 6th Defendants.