Njoroge & another (Suing as Administrators of the Estate of Njoroge Ngugi) v Haji; Four Quad Residence Limited (Intended Defendant) (Environment & Land Case E412 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5084 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the intended 2nd defendant ought to be joined as a party post judgment
Joinder refused; the applicant is a stranger to the plaintiffs who bear no claim against it, and it has a valid claim against the defendant.
The court applied Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Central Kenya Ltd v Trust Bank Ltd, holding that the decision to sue a party rests with the plaintiff. The applicant bears a heavier duty to show it deserves joinder, particularly post-judgment. The defendant never disclosed the transfer; the plaintiffs were strangers to the applicant. The applicant should pursue the defendant. The court detected mischief in dealings with the title while temporary orders were in force.
Whether the orders for review should be granted
Review refused; no certificate of official search was shown to have been produced at hearing proving the plaintiffs knew of the transfer, and mere visits to the suit property did not establish knowledge.
Review under Section 80 and Order 45 requires discovery of new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason, without unreasonable delay. The applicant blamed the parties for non-disclosure but could not show the exact official search produced during hearing indicating it was the owner. Visits to the property did not prove the plaintiffs knew who was constructing. The application was aimed at circumventing justice.
Whether the court is functus officio (preliminary objection)
Not decisively determined; the court proceeded to consider the intertwined review and joinder questions, implicitly treating review as an available avenue for an aggrieved non-party.
The plaintiffs raised a preliminary objection that the court was functus officio after final judgment on 21st November 2024. The applicant relied on authorities that review is an exception to functus officio. The court did not expressly rule on the objection but held that a non-party aggrieved by a decision may properly apply for review at this stage, and considered the intertwined questions on their merits.
Legal principles established
#- An application for review may be made by a person who was not necessarily a party to the proceedings but who is aggrieved by the decision.
- Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act grants the power of review while Order 45 restricts the grounds: discovery of new and important matter or evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason, without unreasonable delay.
- The decision as to who to sue is essentially that of the plaintiff, and joinder post-judgment imposes a heavier duty on the applicant to show it is deserving.
Court orders
#- 1.The notice of motion dated 10th February, 2025 is dismissed
- 2.The plaintiffs/respondents are awarded the costs of the application
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya; Sections 1A, 1B, 3A, 80 and 100 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 1 Rule 10, Order 45 Rules (1) & 3 and Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njoroge & another (Suing as Administrators of the Estate of Njoroge Ngugi) v Haji; Four Quad Residence Limited (Intended Defendant) (Environment & Land Case E412 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5084 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract (ruling on notice of motion dated 10th February, 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5084/eng@2025-07-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.