Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment· [2025] KEELC 943 (KLR)

Deliverance Church Registered Trustees & 85 others v Worldwide Freighters Limited (Environment & Land Case 140 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 943 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court of Kenya
3 March 2025
AKA. Y. Koross
1,101 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled that a stranger to a lawsuit cannot apply to join other parties—only actual parties or the intended parties themselves can make such applications.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Machakos (A. Y. Koross, J) delivered on 3 March 2025 on a notice of motion dated 18/12/2023 filed allegedly by the 3rd defendant, Jackson Kasamu Kavisu, seeking the joinder of Tropical Blooms Ltd, Mayor H.K Langat and Muigai Commercial Agencies as interested parties, plus costs. It was opposed by the plaintiffs through an affidavit of Bishop Joseph Mutua Muindi, who deposed that no evidence showed the proposed parties wished to be joined, that the application was an afterthought brought late after pleadings closed, and that the plaintiffs would be prejudiced. The plaintiffs filed submissions; the applicant's counsel filed none and their extension request was rejected. The court framed three issues: whether the alleged 3rd defendant was a party to the proceedings; whether the three proposed parties should be joined; and what orders should issue, including costs. Applying Order 4 Rule 1(c) and Order 1 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court found the amended plaint dated 15/09/2021 identified Worldwide Freighters Limited as the sole defendant, and the amended defence dated 10/06/2022 was filed only by that company; the alleged 3rd defendant was therefore a stranger lacking locus standi, rendering the motion incompetent, as it should have been moved by parties to the suit or the intended interested parties. The court relied on the Supreme Court decisions in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Matemo and Freedom Limited v Mbarak, adding that even if standing existed, the proposed parties had not demonstrated any identifiable personal stake or legal interest in the suit. Finding it unnecessary to consider joinder, the court dismissed the motion with costs to the plaintiffs and directed a mention for case conference and a hearing date on 19 May 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the alleged 3rd defendant had standing to move the court

Holding

The alleged 3rd defendant is a stranger to the proceedings because only Worldwide Freighters Limited was sued and filed a defence; lacking locus standi, its motion is incompetent.

Reasoning

Order 4 Rule 1(c) CPR requires a plaint to disclose the defendant sued, and the amended plaint dated 15/09/2021 identified Worldwide Freighters Limited as the sole defendant. The amended defence dated 10/06/2022 was filed only by Worldwide Freighters Limited. There being no evidence the alleged 3rd defendant was a party, he was a stranger without locus standi to move the motion; the application should have been brought by parties to the suit or the intended interested parties themselves.

p. 3
02

Whether the intended interested parties should be joined

Holding

Having found the motion incompetent for lack of standing, the court found it unnecessary to determine joinder, noting in any event the settled principles in Freedom Limited v Mbarak had not been met.

Reasoning

The court reasoned that even if the alleged 3rd defendant had locus standi, which it expressly found he did not, the intended interested parties had not satisfied the principles for joinder set out in the Supreme Court decision of Freedom Limited v Mbarak. No identifiable personal stake or legal interest, such as a certificate of registration, existence of another suit or title documents, had been revealed for any of the three proposed parties.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Only a party to the proceedings, or the intended interested party itself, may move the court for joinder; a stranger lacks locus standi to file such an application, which is incompetent.
  • An applicant for joinder of interested parties must demonstrate the identifiable personal stake or legal interest the proposed party has in the suit.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 18/12/2023 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the motion awarded to the plaintiffs
  3. 3.Matter to be mentioned before the court for case conference and issuance of a hearing date on 19.05.2025
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the Civil Procedure Act and Rules (Order 1 Rule 3 and Order 4 Rule 1(c) CPR) to regulate joinder of parties

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Deliverance Church Registered Trustees & 85 others v Worldwide Freighters Limited (Environment & Land Case 140 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 943 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/943/eng@2025-03-03

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.