Jacob Makunyu & 122 others v District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer, Imenti Central District & another; Gideon Muchui Arithi & 1836 others (Applicants/Interested Parties) [2021] KEELC 4535 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Meru's Environment and Land Court allowed 1,800+ land occupants to join a petition as interested parties, confirming no one with an identifiable stake can be shut out of a hearing.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicants qualify as interested parties under Rule 2 of the Mutunga Rules and Order 1 rule 10(2) CPR
They do; they demonstrated an identifiable stake and stand to be affected by the orders sought in the petition.
The court defined an interested party per Black's Law Dictionary and Rule 2 of the 2013 Rules and examined Order 1 rule 10(2). Examining the prayers in the petition, it found the ownership claim of the petitioners directly paralleled the applicants' claim as occupants, making the applicants necessary parties whose presence is needed to completely settle all questions.
Whether failure to exhaust dispute resolution mechanisms under Cap 284 bars joinder
It does not; the dispute is complex, concerning creation of a new adjudication section, and exceeds ordinary adjudication mechanisms.
The court noted it had previously held (Johnson Mbaabu Mburugu) that the Ruiri-Rwarera/Mbwaa 'A' dispute goes beyond ascertainment of rights, involving the creation of the adjudication section itself and its interpretation and implementation of a Court of Appeal consent order, so reliance on Cap 284 mechanisms was not sustainable. The court also questioned why the same route was not recommended for the petitioners.
Whether lack of written authority from the 1832 persons is fatal
The objection was not properly raised before the court.
The court found that the issue of consent/authority was not raised in the petitioners' replying affidavit of Jacob Makunyu but only surfaced in submissions, and therefore could not be determined on submissions alone without being properly pleaded in response to the application.
Legal principles established
#- An intending party to be joined must be a necessary or proper party whose presence is necessary to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions in the dispute.
- The right to be heard is a valued right and a party's rights should not be prejudiced without an opportunity to be heard.
- A party seeking joinder must demonstrate a legal, identifiable interest or duty in the pending litigation.
Court orders
#- 1.Application filed on 29.10.2019 allowed; the applicants enjoined as interested parties in the petition
- 2.Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the petition
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 50(1) of the Constitution; Rule 2 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013; Order 1 rule 10(2) Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Jacob Makunyu & 122 others v District Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer, Imenti Central District & another; Gideon Muchui Arithi & 1836 others (Applicants/Interested Parties) [2021] KEELC 4535 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). Application dated 25.10.2019 in Meru ELC Constitutional Petition (filed 29.10.2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/4535/eng@2021-02-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.