Runya & 3 others v Mugo & 6 others (Environment & Land Case 17 of 2020 & Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 15 & 122 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2024] KEELC 6225 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Leave for incoming advocate after judgment
Leave was granted since the application under Order 9 Rule 9 was combined with prayers for setting aside and joinder, as permitted by Order 9 Rule 10
Order 9 Rule 9 requires leave for a change of advocate after judgment. Order 9 Rule 10 allows such an application to be combined with other prayers, with the question of representation determined first. Because the applicants sought leave to come on record within the same motion seeking setting aside and joinder, the court proceeded to grant the leave.
Joinder of interested parties after judgment
Order 1 Rule 10(2) contemplates joinder in pending proceedings; joinder after judgment requires the judgment first to be set aside, and the court found the intended interested parties were never served or aware of the suit
The court held that Order 1 Rule 10(2) envisages proceedings not yet determined, and that a party cannot be enjoined after judgment unless the judgment is reviewed or set aside. Finding no proof the applicants knew of the suit, the court held they could not be faulted for losing their chance to be heard, and relied on authority allowing post-judgment joinder where a party's property rights and constitutional right to be heard were at stake. The application was accordingly allowed.
Functus officio and locus standi objections
The functus officio doctrine does not bar setting aside a judgment to accommodate unheard parties, and the applicants' beneficial interest gave them sufficient locus standi
The court accepted that functus officio protects finality but noted exceptions: it does not prevent correcting errors or accommodate parties never heard. On locus standi, an interested party needs a recognizable stake; the applicants' claimed beneficial proprietorship of the suit plots was sufficient interest. Discretion to strike out abusive applications must be sparingly exercised given the right of access to justice and the duty to determine cases on merit.
Costs
Costs are discretionary under Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act; balancing the 1st Defendant's prejudice, the applicants were to pay thrown away costs of Kshs. 50,000, with no other costs orders
Costs follow the event unless the court for good reason orders otherwise. Although the application succeeded, the court took judicial notice of the protracted litigation over the same subject matter and the 1st Defendant's sustained expense. To balance substantive justice with the maxim that litigation must come to an end, the court awarded thrown away costs to the 1st Defendant and made no further orders as to costs.
Legal principles established
#- A party cannot be joined to proceedings after judgment unless the judgment is reviewed or set aside to accommodate the joined party's participation
- The functus officio doctrine bars merit-based re-engagement with a decided case but does not bar a court from setting aside its judgment to accommodate parties who were never heard
- A person with a sufficient, identifiable stake in the suit property has locus standi to seek joinder and a hearing
- Substantive justice may justify setting aside a judgment and rehearing a matter de novo rather than denying parties the right to be heard
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application by the intended Interested Parties dated 6th May, 2024 is allowed
- 2.Leave granted to the firm of Mkan & Co. Advocates to come on record on behalf of the Interested Parties
- 3.The Judgment of the Court delivered on 21st February, 2024 and any consequential orders thereon set aside
- 4.Leave granted joining the Interested Parties to the record of the court
- 5.The Interested Parties granted leave to file the necessary pleadings, documents and witness statements within 21 days
- 6.The Interested Parties to pay the 1st Defendant thrown away costs of Kenya Shillings Fifty Thousand (Kshs. 50,000.00) within 14 days
- 7.The Plaintiffs and Defendants granted corresponding leave to file their responses within 14 days
- 8.Strict timeframes imposed; suit to be concluded within 60 days with no adjournments
- 9.Matter to be heard and finalized on 4th December, 2024 with judgment delivered on 3rd February, 2025
- 10.No orders as to costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 50 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21) and Order 9 Rule 9, Order 1 Rule 10(2), Order 50 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (3)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Nariamao (Registered Trustee of Legio Maria of African Church Mission) v Ewoi (Environment and Land Appeal E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 8180 (KLR)[2025] KEELC 8180 (KLR)26 Nov 2025
- Runya & 3 others v Mugo & 6 others (Environment & Land Case 17 of 2020 & Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 15 & 122 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2024] KEELC 6225 (KLR)[2024] KEELC 6225 (KLR)23 Sept 2024
- Osman v Gulaam Enterprises Limited (Environment & Land Case E013 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 108 (KLR)[2024] KEELC 108 (KLR)24 Jan 2024
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Runya & 3 others v Mugo & 6 others (Environment & Land Case 17 of 2020 & Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 15 & 122 of 2021 (Consolidated)) [2024] KEELC 6225 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in judgment (Mombasa ELC suit; consolidated matters include MSA CMCC/ELC No. 201 of 2019, MSA CMCC/ELC No. 49 of 2020 and MSA ELC No. 17 of 2020). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/6225/eng@2024-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.