https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3615

Smeth Valley Limited v Sankey Ltd; Wakiaga (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E216 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3615 (KLR) (5 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3615 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E216 of 2025 TW Murigi, J June 5, 2026 Between Smeth Valley Limited Applicant and Sankey Limited Respondent and Hon Justice James Wakiaga Interested Party Ruling 1.By a Notice of Motion dated 15th August 2025, brought under Orders 1 Rules 8(3), 10(2), and 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B, and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, the Proposed Interested Party/Applicant seeks the following orders:a.Spent.b.That the Applicant herein, Hon. Justice James Wakiaga, be enjoined as an Interested Party in these proceedings prior to the hearing of the Notice of Motion dated 24th July 2025.c.That the costs of this application be provided for. 2.The application is based on the grounds appearing on its face together with the supporting affidavit of the Applicant sworn on even date. The Applicant’s Case 3.He averred that he is the registered owner of L.R No. 1160/1255, original number 1160/156/7, IR 23404, having acquired it by way of a transfer from Olivia Dranny Bulyaba. He maintained that neither the Applicant nor the Respondent owns the suit property. He further averred that, upon perusing the pleadings, he noticed some discrepancies in the Applicant's documents and intends to submit them to the Land Fraud Department of the DCI for investigation. 4.He stated that he was currently constructing a residential house on the property and was flabbergasted by the Applicant's claim, which he contended was based on forged documents. He urged the Court to admit him as an Interested Party so that the real issues in controversy could be fully determined. The Applicant’s Case 5.The Applicant filed a replying affidavit sworn by Paul Maiyo on 8th December 2025, in opposition to the application. The deponent argued that a proposed Interested Party must demonstrate a direct and identifiable stake in the proceedings, that he would suffer significant prejudice if not joined, that his presence is necessary for a complete resolution, and that his arguments would be distinct from those already presented. 6.The deponent contends that the eviction proceedings were instituted against Sankey Limited as the unlawful occupant, that the company is capable of defending itself. He argued that the application for joinder is an abuse of process intended to delay the proceedings. He asserted that the depositions the Interested Party sought to make merely replicate the defence already presented by the company. He averred that the project documentation confirmed that Sankey Limited was the client who instructed the project manager, thereby rendering the eviction proceedings properly directed against it. 7.He contended that the Interested Party's attempt to be joined is a mischievous effort to circumvent the doctrine of corporate personality, which clearly distinguishes the company from its directors and shareholders. He maintained that the application is unnecessary, as the company is already a party and all required statutory notices have been served upon it. 8.The deponent averred that the folio register held by the Interested Party was cancelled by the Director of Survey. He argued that the alleged acquisition is fraudulent, irregular, and void ab initio and therefore no legitimate title or interest in L.R 1160/530 or L.R 1160/531 could have been acquired. He maintained that L.R 1160/156 remains the legitimate, undivided property, and that the Interested Party consequently lacked the definitive evidence of ownership necessary to establish a direct and substantive interest in the proceedings. 9.He argued that any dispute regarding the cancelled folio register should be raised in separate proceedings. He maintained that the Interested Party is not a necessary party and would not be prejudiced by non-joinder, given the extinguishment of his claim. He argued that the non-disclosure of the Interested Party’s directorial role in the company demonstrates a lack of good faith material to the application. 10.The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Applicants Submissions 11.The Applicant filed submissions dated 8th January 2026 and 13th March 2026. 12.On behalf of the Applicant, Counsel submitted that the Interested Party had failed to demonstrate a personal or legal interest in the proceedings, that he would suffer prejudice if excluded, or that his presence is necessary for a complete resolution. Counsel contended that the depositions advanced in support of the joinder application merely replicated the defence already presented by the Respondent in its replying affidavit, and therefore, joinder would amount to re-litigating issues already before the Court. 13.Counsel further submitted that the Interested Party lacks locus standi to represent the Respondent, as evidenced by the CR12, which confirms that the only registered director of Sankey Limited is a woman. Counsel argued that the application lacks bona fides due to the non-disclosure of the Interested Party's alleged directorship. Counsel contended that the Interested Party is indeed a director, his application constitutes an attempt to use the corporate veil to create a spurious separate defence, as the interests of the Respondent and the Interested Party are inherently linked. Counsel maintained that any remedy available to the Interested Party would be through a separate suit to verify the authenticity of his title. 14.Counsel urged the Court to find that the occupation of the suit property is unlawful, that the alleged subdivision title is invalid, that the Interested Party lacks locus standi to represent the Respondent, and that the Applicant is entitled to an eviction order. The Interested Party’s Submissions 15.The Interested Party filed his submissions dated 21st November 2025. 16.On behalf of the Interested Party, Counsel submitted that the Interested Party had sought joinder on the grounds that he is the registered owner of L.R No. 1160/1255 (original number 1160/156/7), I.R 234042, Karen, Nairobi, having acquired it through a transfer registered on 3rd October 2022 from Olivia Dranny Bulyaba, who had acquired it through inheritance. Counsel contended that neither the Applicant nor the Respondent owned the said property. 17.Counsel further submitted that one of the documents annexed to the Applicant's application appears to be a certificate of title for L.R No. 1160/1021 and 116, which relates to a different parcel. Counsel further submitted that it is in the interest of justice for the Interested Party to be joined so that the real issues in controversy can be determined. 18.Counsel submitted that the Court's discretion to order joinder is conferred by Order 1, Rules 3 and 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. Counsel relied on Civicon Limited v Kivuwatt Limited & 2 Others [2015] eKLR, where the Court of Appeal held that the purpose of joinder is to include all persons who are parties to the dispute so that it can be determined in their presence without a multiplicity of proceedings. 19.Counsel further relied on Meme v Republic [2004] KLR 637 to submit that joinder is allowed when the presence of a party would result in the complete resolution of all issues in the proceedings, when it would protect the rights of a party who might otherwise be adversely affected, and when it would prevent a proliferation of litigation. 20.Counsel also relied on Deported Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd [1999] 1 EA 55 (SCU), as cited in Civicon Limited, to submit that a party may be joined when its presence is necessary for the Court to effectively adjudicate upon all questions in the suit. For such joinder to be granted, it must be shown either that the orders sought would legally affect that person's interests and that joinder is desirable to avoid a multiplicity of suits, or that the defendant cannot effectually set up a desired defence unless that person is joined. 21.Counsel further submitted that a party only needs to demonstrate sufficient interest in the suit, which does not have to be of the kind that must succeed at trial. Counsel submitted that an applicant for joinder must demonstrate an identifiable interest in the subject matter and that his presence is necessary for the court to effectively settle all issues in the suit. To support this point, Counsel relied on Sosiani Builders v The Chief Land Registrar & 4 Others [2021] eKLR. 22.Counsel submitted that the Interested Party's proprietary rights are protected by Article 40(1) of the Constitution, while his right to a fair hearing is guaranteed by Article 50(1), particularly in circumstances involving a lifetime investment at stake. Counsel contended that the Applicant's application is supported by forged documents requiring investigation, which cannot be carried out without the involvement of the Interested Party. 23.Counsel further submitted that the orders sought in the eviction application are final and draconian and are based on a motion without a substantive suit. In conclusion, Counsel urged the Court to allow the application as prayed. Analysis And Determination 24.Having considered the application, the respective affidavits, and the rival submissions, the issue that arises for determination is whether the intended Interested Party should be joined in these proceedings. 25.The law governing joinder of parties is grounded on Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provides as follows;“The Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon, or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as Plaintiff or Defendant be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as Plaintiff or Defendant or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court to effectually and completely to adjudicate upon or settle all questions involved in the suit, be added.” 26.The Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition, defines an interested party as a party who has a recognizable stake in a matter. 27.The Supreme Court of Kenya in Communications Commission of Kenya and 4 Others …Vs… Royal Media Services Limited & 7 Others Petition No. 15 OF [2014] eKLR defined an Interested Party as follows:“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. Similarly, in the case of Meme Vs. 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.We ask ourselves the following questions:-a)What is the intended party’s state and relevance in the proceedings, andb)will the intended interested party suffer any prejudice if denied joinder.” 28.In the case of Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemo & 5 Others (2015) eKLR the Court held that;“An interested party is one who has a stake in the proceedings, though he or she was not party to the cause ab initio. He or she is one who will be affected by the decision of the court when it is made either way. Such a person feels that his interest will not be well articulated unless he himself or she herself appears in the proceedings and champions his or her cause.” 38.These are persuasive decisions that state the legal position with regard to joinder of Interested Parties. 39.In the matter at hand, the Intended Interested Party annexed to his affidavit documents indicating his ownership of L.R No. 1160/1255 (original number 1160/156/7), including a copy of the mother title from which his parcel is derived, and a certificate of title registered in his name on 3rd October 2022. The Interested Party’s interest in the suit property is evidently not peripheral. 40.The Intended Interested Party indeed averred that he is a director of the Respondent. However, the Applicant presented a CR12 form dated 1st December 2025 from the Companies Registry of Kenya, which indicates that the only registered director of the Respondent is Jackline Nyambura Maina. 41.This Court finds that the Intended Interested Party has not established any formal directorial or corporate nexus to the Respondent. Notwithstanding that averment, his claim to the suit property is not based on any interest in the Respondent company, but on his own registered title documents. The corporate identity of the Respondent and the personal proprietary claim of the Intended Interested Party are therefore distinct matters. 42.The upshot of the foregoing is that the Intended Interested Party has demonstrated a direct, identifiable, and proximate personal interest in the suit property; that he stands to suffer real prejudice if excluded from the proceedings; and that his participation is necessary for this court to effectively and completely resolve all issues in this matter, particularly the issue of the true ownership of the suit property and the validity of the competing titles. 43.In the end, I find that the application dated is merited and is hereby allowed as prayed. RULING SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 5TH DAY OF JUNE 2026…………………………………….HON. T. MURIGIJUDGEIN THE PRESENCE OF:Omuga for the Respondent and proposed Interested PartyKhawale holding a brief for Ombati for the ApplicantAhmed – Court assistant