Bao Gold Hill Kenya Limited v Attorney General & 2 others; Tianjin Hongfengyuan Trading Co Ltd (Proposed Interested Party) (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7037 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed a company with a claimed share interest in a mining licence dispute to join a constitutional petition as an interested party.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Proposed Interested Party should be joined to the Petition as an Interested Party
- 2.Whether the Petition should be amended to include the Proposed Interested Party
Key legal issues
#Whether the proposed interested party demonstrated an identifiable stake warranting joinder
The court found the proposed interested party had an identifiable stake, given its allegation that the impugned mining licence bears the name of its director, and that it would suffer prejudice if not joined.
The court applied the Muruatetu criteria: personal interest, prejudice from non-joinder, and distinct submissions. Although the petitioner challenged the applicant's shareholder status and raised res judicata based on Narok HCCC E007 of 2025, the court could not verify those proceedings. The alleged connection between the director's name and the impugned mining licence sufficed to show an identifiable stake and potential prejudice, justifying joinder in the court's discretion under Rule 7 of the Mutunga Rules.
Whether the application was res judicata having regard to Narok HCCC No. E007 of 2025
The court declined to find the application res judicata because it had not seen the earlier proceedings.
The petitioner argued the joinder attempt re-litigated matters conclusively determined in Narok HCCC No. E007 of 2025, where a suit was struck out for want of jurisdiction under an arbitration-type clause. The court held it lacked the benefit of seeing those proceedings and therefore could not make a finding of res judicata, leaving that objection unresolved rather than decided.
Legal principles established
#- An interested party is one with an identifiable stake or legal interest in the proceedings, and joinder is at the court's discretion where the interest is clear, identifiable and not merely peripheral.
- In a constitutional petition, the Civil Procedure Act and Rules do not apply; the Mutunga Rules and the Constitution govern joinder of interested parties.
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to amend the Petition to include Tianjin Hongfengyuan Trading Co. Ltd as an interested party
- 2.Joinder of Tianjin Hongfengyuan Trading Co. Ltd as an Interested Party in the Petition
- 3.Costs of the application to be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution; Rule 7 of the Constitution (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013 (Mutunga Rules)
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Having considered the instant Application, the provisions of the Constitution, the Mutunga Rules, the various decided cases and the rival written submissions this court finds and holds that the proposed interested party has an identifiable interest in this Petition and it would be prudent to join it as an Interested Party herein.
For the above reasons, the court allows the Notice of Motion Application dated 29th September 2025, by the Proposed Interested Party and the said Application is allowed in terms of prayers Nos 2 and 3, with costs being in the cause.
This court has not had the benefit of seeing those proceedings, and cannot find and hold that the application herein is resjudicata
Issues in the judgment
#The court states the Civil Procedure Act and Rules do not apply, yet the application was expressly brought under Order 10 rule 1 and Order 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the petitioner relied on Order 1 rule 10(2).
Internal inconsistency in the naming of the petitioner's claimed shareholders: elsewhere the register is said to show 'Hunan Shuangfeng Baojinshan Mining Co. Ltd' with 990 shares, while the Narok suit names 'Hunan Shuangfeng Baoguanjin Mining Co. Ltd'.
Role labels are inconsistent: the Petitioner is simultaneously referred to as 'Petitioner/Respondent' and the proposed interested party as both 'Applicant' and 'Interested Party'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bao Gold Hill Kenya Limited v Attorney General & 2 others; Tianjin Hongfengyuan Trading Co Ltd (Proposed Interested Party) (Environment and Land Petition E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7037 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Constitution Petition (Narok), Notice of Motion dated 29th September 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7037/eng@2025-10-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.