Patrick Ng’ang’a Kiarie v Michael Kamau Mwangi & another; Michael Kamau Mwangi & another (Interested Parties) [2019] KEELC 1953 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU ELC NO. 245 OF 2017 PATRICK NG’ANG’A KIARIE.................................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS MICHAEL KAMAU MWANGI........................................1 ST DEFENDANT COUNTY GOVERNMENT OF NAKURU.....................2ND DEFENDANT AND MICHAEL KAMAU MWANGI LOISE WANGARI NJOROGE................................INTERESTED PARTY RULING (Application to be enjoined as interested party; applicant appearing to have a distinct claim for the suit land; application dismissed and applicant advised to file a separate suit to agitate his claim) 1. The application before me is that dated 14 November 2018 filed by two persons, namely Michael Kamau Mwangi and Loise Wangari Njoroge, who wish to be enjoined in these proceedings as interested parties. 2. To put matters into context, this suit was commenced through a plaint which was filed on 12 June 2017 against one Michael Kamau Mwangi and the County Government of Nakuru. In his plaint, the plaintiff averred that on 1 September 2009, he saw a notice of repossession of plots within the jurisdiction of the County Government of Nakuru. He then applied to be allocated one of the repossessed plots and was allotted the plot known as Light Industry Plot No. 30 at Bahati Trading Centre and was issued with an allotment letter. This plot had initially been allotted to one Elijah Mwangi (now deceased). In June 2017, the 1 st defendant, entered the plot claiming that it belongs to his deceased father, the said Elijah Mwangi and it is this which prompted him to file this suit. In the case, he wishes to have the said Michael Kamau Mwangi, permanently restrained from the suit land. 3. The two applicants have filed this application as administrators of the estate of Elijah Mwangi. They claim that their father was allotted the suit land and that the said property is subject to succession cause No. 36 and 37 of 2016. It is claimed that the estate of the deceased has been in occupation of the suit land and pays rates to date. 4. I have considered the application. It does appear to me as if the estate of the deceased wishes to claim the suit land. If that is the case, what the applicants need to do is file suit on behalf of the estate of the deceased stating why they believe the suit land ought to be held as belonging to the estate of the deceased and not to the plaintiff herein. If found necessary, such suit, if filed, may be consolidated with this suit for a final determination. I am not persuaded that the best avenue is for the applicants to seek to be enjoined as interested parties, for it seems to be that the estate wishes to agitate its own claim of entitlement to the suit land. 5. For the above reasons, I am not inclined to allow the application and the same is hereby dismissed. 6. I make no orders as to costs. Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Nakuru this 24th day of July 2019. JUSTICE MUNYAO SILA

page 1 of 2