Millenium Savanna Group Limited v Biomed Health Care Ltd & another; Ahmed & another (Intended Interested Party) (Environment and Land Appeal E079 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2148 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The court let two director-guarantors join a rent dispute appeal but refused to hand the landlord vacant possession before the appeal itself is decided.
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 Parties should be joined
- 2.Whether the Applicant should be granted vacant possession of the Premises
- 3.Who should be awarded Costs
Key legal issues
#Whether the Proposed Interested Parties should be enjoined in the appeal
Joinder allowed; the Proposed Interested Parties, being directors of the Respondents and guarantors/primary obligors under the Guarantee Covenant executed on 20/9/2021, have a legal interest in the suit premises and will be affected by any decision of the court regarding it.
The court applied the Supreme Court's principles in the Ndii petition (drawing on Mumo Matemu and Muruatetu): a proposed interested party must set out a personal, identifiable and proximate interest, demonstrate the prejudice of non-joinder, and outline the submissions it intends to make. The deponent showed the Proposed Interested Parties are directors who executed a Guarantee Covenant making them jointly and severally liable as guarantors and primary obligors for rent arrears. The court also noted they had commenced a related suit over the same premises and obtained ex parte access orders. No prejudice to the Respondents was shown.
Whether vacant possession and removal of fixtures should be ordered pending the appeal
Refused; the Notice of Motion dated 15/12/2025 was dismissed.
The appeal concerns the Lower Court's Ruling striking out the suit for want of jurisdiction on account of an arbitration clause. The orders of re-entry and vacant possession were never pronounced upon by the Lower Court. As an appellate court whose pleading is the Memorandum of Appeal, the court could only preserve the suit property pending determination of the appeal, not grant final relief. Additionally, a similar application dated 9/12/2025 was pending before the Lower Court, so duplicating it in the appeal offended Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act on sub judice. If the appeal succeeds, the Applicant may still prosecute its application in the Lower Court.
Costs
No orders as to costs in respect of both applications.
Both applications were unopposed, as no responses were filed despite service and an opportunity to respond being given to the 1st Respondent's counsel. Only the Appellant's submissions were filed and considered. In the exercise of discretion, the court made no order as to costs for either the allowed joinder application or the dismissed Notice of Motion.
Legal principles established
#- An appellate court hearing an appeal on jurisdiction cannot grant final substantive relief such as vacant possession before determining the appeal; it may only issue orders preserving the suit property in the interim.
- An interested party must have an identifiable stake or legal interest in the proceedings, and whose presence will help settle the issues in the case.
- A party who has already invoked the jurisdiction of the Lower Court over a dispute cannot simultaneously pursue identical interim relief in the appellate court; such duplication offends the sub judice doctrine under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Court orders
#- 1.Uba Mohammed Ahmed and Enid Kanyiri Gikunda shall be joined in the suit as Interested Parties
- 2.The Notice of Motion application dated 15/12/2025 is unmerited and is dismissed
- 3.There shall be no orders as to costs in respect of both applications
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- On appeal from
- Lower Court (magistrates' court)
- Not stated in the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3 and 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act; Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act; Orders 1 Rules 10(2) & 25 and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (appellate jurisdiction over the Lower Court Ruling striking out the suit for want of jurisdiction)
Relief refused
#Vacant possession of Unit 1 in Wing A of Millenium Business Park pending hearing and determination of the appeal
This court, being an appellate court, can only issue orders to preserve the suit property pending determination of the appeal; granting final possession orders would be tantamount to summarily determining the jurisdictional question before the appeal is heard on the merits
Order compelling the 1st and 2nd Respondents to remove their fixtures from Unit 1 in Wing A pending determination of the appeal
The orders were not pronounced upon by the Lower Court and would offend the sub judice doctrine given the pending similar application dated 9/12/2025 before the Lower Court
Costs
There shall be no orders as to costs in respect of both applications.
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.
Uba Mohammed Ahmed and Enid Kanyiri Gikunda shall be joined in the suit as Interested Parties.
The Notice of Motion application is unmerited and it is hereby dismissed.
There shall be no orders as to costs in respect of both applications.
This court cannot determine issues outside the Memorandum of Appeal, let alone issue final orders such as those sought herein before the determination of the appeal.
It is therefore in the interests of justice that they be joined and afiorded an opportunity to be heard.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the date of the Lower Court Ruling under appeal: paragraph 8 deposes that the suit was struck out vide Ruling dated 1/4/2025, while paragraph 24 states the appeal concerns the Ruling dated 17/3/2025 upholding the Preliminary Objection.
The judgment does not disclose the case number, the parties' names (beyond the Appellant's Director and the 2nd Respondent A&Z Nutraceuticals Limited), or a neutral citation.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Millenium Savanna Group Limited v Biomed Health Care Ltd & another; Ahmed & another (Intended Interested Party) (Environment and Land Appeal E079 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2148 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2148/eng@2026-04-16
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.