Attorney General v Ndii & 73 others
The bottom line
#Supreme Court dismisses PNU's bid to join constitutional case for lacking a distinct personal interest.
What this practically means
#The Party of National Unity wanted to join a Supreme Court case about changing the Constitution. The court said no because PNU did not show it had a personal stake in the matter or would suffer harm if left out. Its arguments were too similar to those already being made by other parties. Joining a case is not automatic; you must prove a clear and separate interest.
Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the applicant has met the legal requirements for joinder as an interested party under Rule 24(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020 and the principles in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu & 5 others and Francis Karioki Muruatetu & another v Republic & 5 others
Key legal issues
#Whether the Party of National Unity met the legal requirements for joinder as an interested party.
The applicant failed to meet the threshold because it did not establish a personal interest or stake that is proximate enough to occasion prejudice if not enjoined.
The court applied the principles from Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu and Francis Karioki Muruatetu & another v Republic, which require an applicant to demonstrate a personal interest, prejudice from non-joinder, and that submissions are not a replication of other parties' arguments. The court found that the applicant's submissions, which argued for a 'two-step inquiry' on basic structure amendments, did not show a distinct personal interest or stake separate from the parties already on record, and thus failed to satisfy the elements.
Legal principles established
#- Joinder as an interested party is discretionary, not a right.
- Applicant must demonstrate a personal and proximate interest in the case.
- Applicant must show prejudice or harm if not allowed to join.
- Submissions must be distinct and not merely replicate other parties' arguments.
- All three elements must be satisfied for the court to grant joinder.
- The burden of proof lies on the applicant seeking joinder.
Court orders
#- 1.The application for joinder as an interested party is dismissed.
- 2.There shall be no order as to costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Rule 24(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020
Relief refused
#Joinder of the Party of National Unity as an interested party in the proceedings
The applicant failed to establish a personal interest or stake that is proximate enough to occasion any prejudice to it if not enjoined.
Costs
There shall be no order as to costs.
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
We therefore find no merit in the application and we accordingly dismiss it.
There shall be no order as to costs.
the applicant has not met the threshold for admission as an interested party as it has failed to establish a personal interest or stake that is proximate enough to occasion any prejudice to it, if not enjoined in these proceedings.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Strict joinder criteria reaffirmed
When advising clients on joining Supreme Court proceedings, ensure you can clearly articulate a personal interest, potential prejudice, and that your submissions will add something new. The court will reject applications that merely echo existing arguments, as seen in this case. Prepare a detailed affidavit addressing all three Muruatetu elements.
Limited ability to intervene in constitutional cases
If your business wants to join a constitutional case in Kenya, you must show a direct and personal stake—not just a general interest in the outcome. The court will not allow you to intervene if your arguments overlap with those of other parties. Consider whether you can demonstrate unique harm or a distinct perspective before applying.
Joining a court case is not automatic
As an individual, you cannot simply ask to join a Supreme Court case. You must prove that you have a personal interest that is separate from everyone else, that you will be harmed if you are not included, and that your arguments are different from what others are saying. This ruling shows the court takes these requirements seriously.
Frequently asked questions
#What is an interested party in Kenya Supreme Court?+
An interested party is someone who is not the main applicant or respondent but has a personal stake in the case. In Kenya, you must apply to the court and show you have a distinct interest, would suffer prejudice if not joined, and your submissions are not just repeating what others will say.
How do I join a case as an interested party in Kenya?+
You must file a formal application under Rule 24(1) of the Supreme Court Rules, 2020. The application must explain your personal interest, the harm you will face if not joined, and the unique arguments you will make. The court has discretion to grant or deny the request.
What are the requirements for joinder in Kenya?+
The Supreme Court requires three things: (1) a personal and proximate interest in the matter, (2) prejudice or harm if you are not allowed to join, and (3) submissions that are not a mere replication of what other parties will argue. All three must be clearly shown.
Can a political party join a constitutional case in Kenya?+
Yes, but only if it meets the strict joinder criteria. In this case, the Party of National Unity failed because it did not show a separate personal interest—its arguments were similar to those already before the court. Political parties must demonstrate a unique stake beyond general policy concerns.
Later judgments citing this (5)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Mwangale & another v Registrar & 2 others; Mwangale & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Application E320 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4541 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 4541 (KLR)16 Jul 2026
- Kibet & 4 others v Cheboi & 9 others (Environment and Land Case E006 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3092 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 3092 (KLR)22 May 2026
- Millenium Savanna Group Limited v Biomed Health Care Ltd & another; Ahmed & another (Intended Interested Party) (Environment and Land Appeal E079 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2148 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 2148 (KLR)16 Apr 2026
- Bao Gold Hill Kenya Limited v Attorney General & 2 others; Tianjin Hongfengyuan Trading Co Ltd (Proposed Interested Party) (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7037 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 7037 (KLR)16 Oct 2025
- Kenya United Steel Company (2006) Limited v Ahmed & another (Civil Appeal (Application) E141 of 2022) [2024] KECA 1778 (KLR)[2024] KECA 1778 (KLR)6 Dec 2024
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Attorney General v Ndii & 73 others", Case Analysis (2021). Petition 12 (E016) of 2020. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.orghttps://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kesc/2021/17/eng@2021-11-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.