Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCAllowedNot stated in the judgment

Imala v Impact Investments Limited & 4 others (Land Case E183 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7848 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
13 November 2025
COCHRISTINE OCHIENG
1,654 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed a Kshs 23 million property buyer to join an eviction suit, ruling all competing claimants must be heard together.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Nairobi (Christine Ochieng, J) determined a Notice of Motion dated 20 March 2025 by the proposed 5th Defendant seeking joinder to a suit in which the Plaintiff, having purchased the suit property at a public auction conducted on behalf of African Banking Corporation Ltd, seeks eviction of the 1st Defendant. The proposed 5th Defendant, through its director Idan Haji Isaak, asserted it purchased the suit property from the 1st Defendant for Kshs 23 million under a sale agreement dated 29 June 2017 made with the Chargee's consent, claimed a proprietary interest and occupation, and relied on prior injunction orders in HCCCOM E195 of 2021. The Plaintiff opposed, contending he was not privy to that transaction, that the proposed 5th Defendant's remedy lay in damages against the Chargee bank, and that joinder would introduce extraneous commercial disputes and delay enforcement. The 1st to 4th Defendants did not oppose. The court framed a single issue: whether the proposed 5th Defendant should be joined and granted leave to reply. Applying Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the parameters in Meme v Republic and Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jafier Brothers Ltd, the court held the proposed 5th Defendant's presence necessary for complete adjudication and to avoid multiplicity of suits, and that the Plaintiff showed no prejudice. The application was allowed; the Plaintiff to amend the plaint in 14 days, the 5th Defendant to file its defence in 21 days, with costs in the cause.

Questions the Court framed

#

The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.

  1. 1.Whether the proposed 5th Defendant should be joined in these proceedings as the 5th Defendant and granted leave to file a reply to the suit

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the proposed 5th Defendant should be joined as a defendant

Holding

Joinder allowed because the proposed 5th Defendant claims a proprietary interest in the suit property having paid Kshs 23 million to the 1st Defendant under a sale agreement predating the auction

Reasoning

The court applied Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the parameters in Meme v Republic and Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jafier Brothers Ltd. It found the proposed 5th Defendant entered a sale agreement dated 29 June 2017 with the Chargee's consent and claims proprietary interest in the property which is the central subject of the suit. Its presence was necessary for complete adjudication and would avoid multiplicity of suits, and the Plaintiff showed no prejudice.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • A person whose presence is necessary to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon all questions in the suit may be joined at any stage
  • Joinder is warranted where it avoids multiplicity of suits and the party will be affected by the decision

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The proposed 5th Defendant is enjoined as the 5th Defendant in the proceedings
  2. 2.The Plaintiff to file and serve an amended Plaint in fourteen (14) days
  3. 3.Upon service, the 5th Defendant to file and serve its Defence within twenty-one (21) days
  4. 4.Costs in the cause

The bench

#

One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.

CO
majority

Wrote the judgment

Jurisdiction invoked
Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure 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.

its involvement in these proceedings is necessary to enable the Court efiectually and completely adjudicate upon as well as settle all questions involved in the suit. Further, this will also avoid a multiplicity of suits.
p. 4Necessary party joinder
I find that the Plaintifi has not demonstrated what prejudice he stands to sufier if the proposed 5th Defendant was joined in these proceedings as the 5th Defendant.
p. 4No prejudice shown by objecting party
a. The Plaintifi to file and serve an amended Plaint in fourteen (14) days. b. Upon service, 5th Defendant do file and serve its Defence within twenty (21) days. c. Costs in the cause.
p. 4Final orders

Issues in the judgment

#
minor

Order of final orders states Defence within 'twenty (21) days' - internally inconsistent number of days

minor

Proposed 5th Defendant's director described as 'He' and submissions refer to 'it' inconsistently

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Imala v Impact Investments Limited & 4 others (Land Case E183 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 7848 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7848/eng@2025-11-13

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