Njenga v Kariuki & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 323 of 2015) [2026] KEELC 2656 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether leave to act in person should issue under Order 9 Rule 9
Leave granted; the right to legal representation includes self-representation and no prejudice was shown.
Order 9 Rule 9 requires a party previously represented by counsel to obtain leave to act in person after judgment. The court held that the right to legal representation includes the right to self-representation, that no prejudice or procedural impediment existed, and accordingly allowed the prayer without more.
Whether the threshold for review under Section 80 CPA and Order 45 Rule 1 was met
Not met: inordinate unexplained delay, no due diligence, evidence lacked nexus and probative value; merits-based grievances belong to appeal.
Review requires application without unreasonable delay and discovery of new matter not obtainable with due diligence. The application came nearly three years after judgment with no explanation. The search and title produced were public records, related to a different parcel (Ruiru/Kiu Block 7/131) with no proven nexus to Plot S.90, and could not have changed the outcome. Claims of double allocation go to the merits and are matters for appeal, not review.
Whether the intended Interested Party should be joined under Order 1 Rule 10(2)
Joinder refused; the same failed material underpinned it and no stake or nexus was demonstrated.
While post-judgment joinder is recognized in limited circumstances (JMK v MWM; TSC v KNUT), it is exceptional and needs compelling grounds. The joinder application rested on the same material that failed as newly discovered evidence. No legal, factual or physical nexus was established between the interested party's parcel and Plot S.90, and no prejudice to the proposed party was shown if joinder was declined.
Legal principles established
#- A party previously represented by counsel may act in person after judgment only with leave of the court, which should be granted absent prejudice or procedural impediment
- Inordinate and unexplained delay disentitles an applicant to the discretionary relief of review
- New evidence for review must be shown to have been unobtainable with due diligence and capable of affecting the outcome; documents that are public records do not qualify
- Post-judgment joinder of an interested party is exceptional and requires clear and compelling grounds including a demonstrable nexus to the suit property
Court orders
#- 1.Leave granted to the 1st Defendant to act in person
- 2.The Notice of Motion dated 3rd June 2025 (review) dismissed
- 3.The Notice of Motion dated 9th June 2025 (joinder of Annah Nyokabi Kenyatta as interested party) dismissed
- 4.Costs of both applications awarded to the 1st Respondent
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1, Order 9 Rule 9, Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Rules
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njenga v Kariuki & 2 others (Environment and Land Case 323 of 2015) [2026] KEELC 2656 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2656/eng@2026-04-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.