Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of motion dated 1st December 2025 in ELCLC No. E476 of 2024· [2026] KEELC 3899 (KLR)

Mahadi Investment Ltd v Kenya Railways Corporation & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E502 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3899 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
29 June 2026
MCMbogo C.G.
2,503 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to add a trust member to a land case and blocked review because an appeal was already filed.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Before the Environment and Land Court was a notice of motion dated 1st December 2025 by an intended 2nd plaintiff, represented by Munayi Opondo Isaac, seeking joinder to the suit, a declaratory order that LR No. 209/1064/1,2,3,4 and 5, Valley Road Nairobi (about 2 acres) vests in the members of the 2nd defendant trust under Legal Notice Number 169 of 2006, and variation of the directions issued by Oguttu Mboya J on 20th December 2024. The applicant argued that the 1st defendant failed to disclose material facts regarding the ownership documentation and that over 7,000 trust members would be prejudiced if specific performance were granted, since the trust is irrevocable and the property cannot revert to the state. The 1st defendant opposed, questioning the applicant's identity, standing and authority, and contending that review was barred because the plaintiff had already appealed against the 20th December 2024 ruling. The applicant's replying document was unsworn and therefore of no evidentiary value. The court framed two issues: joinder and the threshold for review. On joinder, it held the applicant was not a party to the sale agreement, had demonstrated no membership or authority, and was not a necessary party, invoking privity of contract. On review, it held that because an appeal against the impugned ruling had already been preferred, the application could not be maintained under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45. The motion was dismissed with costs in the cause, and the ruling applies to ELCLC No. E476 of 2024.

Key legal issues

#
01

Joinder of the intended 2nd plaintiff

Holding

The intended 2nd plaintiff is not a necessary or proper party; joinder refused.

Reasoning

Under Order 1 rules 1 and 10(2), joinder requires a right to relief arising from the same transaction or presence necessary for effectual adjudication. The applicant was not a party to the sale agreement between the plaintiff and 2nd defendant, is not shown to be a member of the trust, and the deponent annexed no signed authority to swear the affidavit. The 2nd defendant is presumed to represent members' interests.

p. 4
02

Whether review of the ruling of 20th December 2024 is available

Holding

Review is unavailable because an appeal against that ruling has been preferred by the plaintiff.

Reasoning

Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 rule 1 permit review only by a person aggrieved by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred, or from which no appeal is allowed. Since the plaintiff has already appealed against the 20th December 2024 ruling, the statutory gateway for review is closed and the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the review prayer.

p. 6

Legal principles established

#
  • An application for review cannot lie where an appeal against the decree or order has already been preferred
  • A third party to a contract cannot be joined as a claimant plaintiff in enforcement of that contract, per privity of contract
  • An unsworn affidavit is not an affidavit and its content cannot be relied upon

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of motion dated 1st December 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs in the cause
  3. 3.The ruling applies to ELCLC No. E476 of 2024

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 80
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 1 rule 10(2)
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 45 rule 1
  • Legal Notice Number 169 of 2006not stated
  • Kenya Railways Corporation Act Cap 397not stated

Cases cited (6)

  • JMK v MWM & another
    [2015] eKLR
  • Mark Otanga Otiende v Dennis Oduor Aduol
    [2021] eKLR
  • Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd v Selfridge & Co Ltd
    [1915] AC 847
  • Agricultural Finance Corporation v Lengetia Ltd
  • Masila & 2 others v Krotonite Enterprises Limited (Miscellaneous Application 31 of 2018)
    [2025] KEELC 4621 (KLR)
  • Vallabhdas Karsandas Raniga – Versus - Mansukhlal Jivraj and Others
    (1965) 1 EA 700(CAN)
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules (review), and Order 1 rules 1 and 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (joinder)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Mahadi Investment Ltd v Kenya Railways Corporation & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E502 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3899 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of motion dated 1st December 2025 in ELCLC No. E476 of 2024. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3899/eng@2026-06-29

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