Onchiri & 489 others v Omani & 11 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E335 of 2023) [2025] KECA 695 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Court of Appeal allowed parties who built structures on disputed land to join the case, while removing dissolved companies from the proceedings.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the names of the 6th, 7th and 8th respondents (Revji Properties Ltd, Seema Properties Ltd and Krushil Properties Ltd), said to have been dissolved on 11th September 2013, should be struck out from the proceedings
- 2.Whether Kabarnet Trading Co. Ltd, Alphana Business Park Ltd, Unigroup Transporters Ltd, Sukadi Complex Ltd and M/s Kensalt Ltd should be joined as interested parties/respondents on the ground that they have erected structures on the suit parcels
Key legal issues
#Joinder of parties claiming occupation or construction on the suit land
The Court allowed the joinder application so that parties alleged to have erected structures on the suit parcels could be afforded an opportunity of being heard, guided by the Departed Asians test for necessary parties.
The Court adopted the Departed Asians Property Custodian Board formulation, distinguishing between joining a party who ought to have been joined as a defendant and one whose presence is necessary for effectual adjudication. Because the applicants alleged the intended interested parties had erected permanent structures on the suit parcels, joinder was necessary to afford them a hearing. The Court could not determine at that stage whether the occupation allegations were correct, but that did not bar joinder.
Striking out of dissolved companies from the proceedings
The application to strike out the names of the 6th, 7th and 8th respondents, said to have been dissolved by Gazette Notice in 2013, was allowed as part of the unopposed application.
It was contended that Revji Properties Ltd, Seema Properties Ltd and Krushil Properties Ltd were dissolved on 11th September 2013, rendering the suit against them unmaintainable. The application was largely unopposed, and the Court allowed the whole application, directing the applicants to amend their pleadings accordingly.
Legal principles established
#- A party need not have a cause of action against them to be joined; joinder is proper where their presence is necessary for the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions in the suit, either because the orders sought would affect their interests or because a defendant cannot effectively set up a defence without them.
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 12th August 2024 is allowed
- 2.The applicants are permitted to amend their pleadings accordingly (effecting the striking out of the dissolved companies' names and the joinder of the intended interested parties)
- 3.No order as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal over its own proceedings on joinder and striking out of parties; no specific constitutional or statutory provision cited in the judgment
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.
In the premises, we allow the application dated August 12, 2024. Let the applicants amend their pleadings accordingly.
We make no order as to costs.
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 efiectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involve in the suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The case title, case number and neutral citation do not appear in the provided judgment text; the judgment begins directly at the numbered paragraph describing the Notice of Motion.
The Court allowed the application but did not make separate express orders for striking out the dissolved companies or for joinder; the operative order is a general allowance with leave to amend pleadings.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Onchiri & 489 others v Omani & 11 others (Civil Appeal (Application) E335 of 2023) [2025] KECA 695 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2025/695/eng@2025-04-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.