Kilima Limited & another v Samuel Ruto – Chairman & 21 others; Carewell Farmers Company Limited & another (Interested Parties) eKLR [2019] KEELC 3322 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A landowner who hid facts when getting ex parte court orders in Kenya lost them, as the court replaced the injunction with a status quo order.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Joinder of Carewell Farmers Company Limited as an interested party
Joinder allowed - the applicant demonstrated a stake in the suit land and its presence would enable complete adjudication and avoid multiplicity of suits
The court applied Order 1 Rule 10(2) and the Supreme Court's definition of an interested party in Communications Commission of Kenya v Royal Media Services. Photographs and documents showed occupation and structures, evidencing a stake. Joinder would cause no prejudice and would avoid separate suits over the same land, saving judicial time and costs.
Whether the ex parte injunction orders of 4th July 2018 should be set aside for non-disclosure of material facts
Orders varied: plaintiffs failed to disclose occupation by many families and the existence of public utilities; a proper order would have been one of status quo
The court held that although service was proper, the plaintiffs' own elaborate service with photographs exposed undisclosed facts of occupation. Had facts like occupation and public schools, health centre and cattle dips been disclosed, the best order would have been status quo. Injunction being equitable, non-disclosure amounts to unclean hands and the orders could not be confirmed.
Proper service on the defendants
Service was proper and elaborate, but the process server's photographs exposed non-disclosed occupation
The court had earlier observed the elaborate nature of service including photographs of persons and locations. The parties were properly served; the defendants' failure to appear on 4th July 2018 did not vitiate the orders, but the photographic evidence rebounded on the plaintiffs by revealing occupation they had concealed.
Competency of the suit for want of authority/resolution
Left undecided at this interlocutory stage
Although counsel for the interested party argued that a suit filed without a company resolution is a non-starter, the court declined to determine the question at the interlocutory stage, deferring it to trial while giving the interested parties leave to file documents within 14 days.
Legal principles established
#- An ex parte applicant owes a high duty of candour to make full and fair disclosure of all material facts; breach results in discharge or variation of the orders
- Non-disclosure of material facts amounts to unclean hands and disentitles a party to discretionary equitable relief
- Joinder of an interested party is governed by Order 1 Rule 10(2); once an identifiable stake or interest is demonstrated the court should freely exercise its discretion in favour of joinder
Court orders
#- 1.Allowed the application for joinder of Carewell Farmers Company Limited as an interested party
- 2.Varied the ex parte order of injunction granted on 4th July 2018 with an order of maintenance of status quo pending the hearing and determination of the suit
- 3.Directed that the suit be heard on a priority basis
- 4.Granted the interested parties leave to file their documents, if any, within 14 days
- 5.Reserved the question of the competency of the suit / authority to file the suit for trial
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; applications under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (7)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Maina & 4 others v Gulf Link Enterprise Limited & 5 others (Environment and Land Petition E085 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3205 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 3205 (KLR)28 May 2026
- Ngamia Consulting Co. (K) Limited v Lorogoi & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E063 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2950 (KLR)[2026] KEELC 2950 (KLR)14 May 2026applied
- Cheruiyot & 5 others v Kirobon Farmers Company Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E067 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6717 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 6717 (KLR)6 Oct 2025applied
- Makundi v Makundi & another (Environment and Land Case 764 of 2013) [2025] KEELC 5724 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 5724 (KLR)29 Jul 2025
- Karin Anne Challis (Suing through the Attorney Isaack Ntongai Samwel) v The Attorney General & 4 others[2023] KEELC 17195 (KLR)5 May 2023
- Karin Anne Challis (Suing through the Attorney Isaack Ntongai Samwel) v The Attorney General & 4 others[2023] KEELC 17195 (KLR)5 May 2023applied
- Nyali Beach Cycads Limited v Francis Kamau Guchu & 3 others [2021] KEELC 3868 (KLR)[2021] KEELC 3868 (KLR)19 Mar 2021
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kilima Limited & another v Samuel Ruto – Chairman & 21 others; Carewell Farmers Company Limited & another (Interested Parties) eKLR [2019] KEELC 3322 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Not stated in the extract (Eldoret ELC suit, application dated 11th June 2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3322/eng@2019-05-09
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.