Samuel K. Rono & 32 others v Joel Komen & 32 others; Hudson Kiptum Kiplagat & another (Applicant) [2021] KEELC 4727 (KLR)

The record showed Komen Kipchirchir Advocates were on record and that Mukabane & Kagunza Advocates' notice of appointment was to act alongside them, not replace them. The complaint that the notice was filed without instructions was left to the Defendants to resolve with that firm, since that firm was not served. Rule 7 of the Advocates (Practice) Rules permits multiple advocates with consent.

Order 42 Rule 6 requires substantial loss, no unreasonable delay, and security. The judgment was delivered on 2nd March 2018 yet the application was only filed in January 2021, with no explanation, despite the then counsel having filed a Notice of Appeal. The delay suggested indolence or nothing of value to lose, and the application was a delaying tactic. Security was moot once substantial loss and delay failed.

Order 1 Rule 10(2) allows joinder only while proceedings are pending; here final judgment had been entered nearly three years earlier. The Applicants produced no sale agreements or other documents proving proprietorship or interest, so they lacked an actionable claim or standing. Consequently they were strangers to the suit with no locus to seek leave to file a defence or to set aside the judgment.

Contempt powers flow from Section 5(1) of the Judicature Act and Section 29 of the Environment and Land Court Act. The Applicants had to prove a clear order, knowledge, breach and deliberateness to the quasi-criminal standard. The Plaintiffs' evidence showed the officers briefed the parties on the status quo order, and the Applicants' contrary claims were unproved; having failed in joinder, they had no locus to sustain contempt proceedings.