Musyoki & another v Dave & 5 others (Land Case E038 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5059 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court struck out two defendants because the lawsuit against them had no substance, showing courts will protect wrongly joined parties.
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 5th and 6th Defendants have been improperly joined as parties to the suit
- 2.Whether the plaint discloses any cause of action against the 5th and 6th Defendants
- 3.Whether the plaint as against the 5th and 6th Defendants should be struck out
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaint discloses a cause of action against the 5th and 6th Defendants
The plaint discloses no cause of action against the 5th and 6th Defendants; it pleads no beneficial or proprietary interest and no specific wrongful act by them.
The claim is pleaded in general form with no material particulars of independent wrongdoing. The 6th Defendant's role as advocate for the 1st Defendant and payment of security services do not, without more, amount to an actionable wrong. If fraud, conspiracy or collusion were intended, they had to be specifically pleaded with full particulars.
Whether the 5th and 6th Defendants are necessary parties
They are not necessary parties; their continued participation serves no useful purpose and their joinder was improper.
A necessary party is one in whose absence no effective decree can be passed. Following the Supreme Court's guidance, a party should only be joined where their presence is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate on the questions in controversy; absent any pleaded cause of action, the joinder improperly burdens them.
The proper exercise of the striking-out discretion
Striking out is discretionary and draconian, to be exercised only in plain and obvious cases, but here the suit against the two defendants is plainly untenable.
The court should strive to sustain rather than terminate litigation at a preliminary stage, and must consider all facts without embarking on a trial. However, the complete absence of pleaded material facts against the 5th and 6th Defendants makes this a plain and obvious case warranting striking out.
Legal principles established
#- The power to strike out pleadings must be exercised sparingly, only in plain and obvious cases, without embarking on the merits.
- An advocate who performs acts pursuant to instructions from a client is not, without more, personally liable in proceedings concerning the subject matter of the representation.
- Allegations of fraud or illegality must be specifically pleaded and strictly proved.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 29/10/2025 is allowed
- 2.The names of the 5th and 6th Defendants are struck out from these proceedings pursuant to Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 3.The Plaint as against the 5th and 6th Defendants is struck out under Order 2 Rule 15(1)(a) of the Civil Procedure Rules
- 4.The costs of the application and the suit as against the 5th and 6th Defendants shall be borne by the Plaintiff at lower scale
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; Civil Procedure Rules (Orders 1 Rule 10(2) and 2 Rule 15(1)(a))
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.
The names of the 5th and 6th Defendants are struck out from these proceedings pursuant to Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The Plaint as against the 5th and 6th Defendants is hereby struck out under Order 2 Rule 15(1) (a) of the Civil Procedure Rules.
The costs of the application and the suit as against the 5th and 6th Defendants shall be borne by the Plaintiff at lower scale.
The mere fact that an advocate performs acts pursuant to instructions received from a client does not, without more, render the advocate personally liable in proceedings concerning the subject matter of the representation.
If the Plaintiff intended to allege fraud, conspiracy or collusion against the two defendants, such allegations ought to have been specifically pleaded with full particulars as required by the Civil Procedure Rules.
Issues in the judgment
#The parties' full names (plaintiffs and 1st–4th defendants, and the 5th defendant) are not stated in the ruling; only the 6th Defendant (Jamal A. Abdinoor) is named, limiting party identification.
The judgment is dated 29 July 2026, while the application before the court is dated 29.10.2025, and the suit itself is of 2023; the lapse of over eight months from application to ruling is unusual and may warrant verification of the delivery date.
The signature block reads 'HON. JUSTICE C.K NZILI' without a full stop after 'C.K', and the coram lists only a court assistant; no lack of judicial officers but the coram details are sparse.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Musyoki & another v Dave & 5 others (Land Case E038 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 5059 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC L Case No. E038 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5059/eng@2026-07-29
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.