Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Kanja & another (Suing as the personal representatives of Martin Kamau Kanja - Deceased) v Wanjohi & another; Karanja & 3 others (Intended Interested Party) (Environment and Land Appeal E021 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 1369 (KLR)

Kanja & another (Suing as the personal representatives of Martin Kamau Kanja - Deceased) v Wanjohi & another; Karanja & 3 others (Intended Interested Party) (Environment and Land Appeal E021 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 1369 (KLR) (20 March 2025) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2025] KEELC 1369 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAJIADO ENVIRONMENT AND LAND APPEAL E021 OF 2023 LC KOMINGOI, J MARCH 20, 2025 BETWEEN MARY WANDIA KANJA ................................................................. 1ST APPELLANT HANNAH NYOKABI KANJA ........................................................ 2ND APPELLANT SUING AS THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF MARTIN KAMAU KANJA - DECEASED AND PATRICK WANJOHI .................................................................... 1ST RESPONDENT JUALIA WANJIRU WANJOHI .................................................... 2ND RESPONDENT AND PETER KUNGU KARANJA ............................ INTENDED INTERESTED PARTY MAUREEN NJERI NJAU ................................. INTENDED INTERESTED PARTY MERCY WAMBUI NJAU ................................. INTENDED INTERESTED PARTY FRANCIS MUGO NDUNGU ........................... INTENDED INTERESTED PARTY (Being an appeal against the Judgement of Hon. Pamela Achieng’ issued on 9th November 2023 in the Senior Principal Magistrate’s Court at Ngong in ELC Case No.E015/2021) RULING 1. This is the Notice of Motion dated 23rd October 2025, brought under; (Pursuant to section 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act 2012, order 1 rules 10(2) and 24 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Section 65,68,69, 78A 106 A-E of the Evidence Act, Cap https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1369/eng@2025-03-20 1

page 1 of 4

80, Section 24, 25 & 26 of the Land Registration Act, 2012, Articles 35, 40, 50 & 68 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, Rule 2 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013, and all other enabling provisions of the law) 2. It seeks orders; i. Spent. ii. That this Honourable Court be pleased to make a declaration for joinder of the Applicants as Interested Parties. iii. That pending the hearing and determination of this application and the appeal this Honourable Court be pleased to grant a stay of execution of the Trial Court’s Orders issued on 9th November, 2023 and temporary preservatory orders against land registration number Ngong/Ngong/63911 and its consequent subdivisions known as registration numbers Ngong/Ngong/100286 (0.05HA), Ngong/Ngong/ 103291 (0.045HA) and Ngong/Ngong/94027(0.05HA). iv. That this being a first appeal, the proposed interested parties’ evidence be admissible to enable their joinder as such. v. That costs of this suit be borne by the Respondent/Defendant. 3. The grounds are on the face of the Application and are set out in paragraphs 1 to 19. 4. The Application is supported by the Afidavit of Francis Mugo Ndungu, the 4th Interested Party/ Applicant, sworn on the 15th October 2024. 5. The Application is opposed. There is a Replying Afidavit sworn by Julia Wanjiru Wanjohi, one of the Respondents on the 10th November 2024. The Appellants intimated to the court that they did not wish to oppose the Application. 6. The Noticed of Motion was canvassed by written submissions. 7. I have considered the Notice of Motion, the Afidavit in support, the response thereto, the rival submissions and the authorities cited. The issue for determination is whether the Intended Interested parties ought to be enjoined in this Appeal. 8. Order 1 rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rule provides that; “ The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintifi or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintifi or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court efiectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added.” The Supreme Court of Kenya in the case of Communications Commission of Kenya & 4 Others Vs. Royal Media Services Limited & 7 Others (2014) eKLR held thus; “ An interested party is one who has a stake in the proceedings, though he or she was not party to the cause ab initio. He or she is one who will be afiected by the decision of the Court when https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1369/eng@2025-03-20 2

page 2 of 4

it is made, either way. Such a person feels that his or her interest will not be well articulated unless he himself or she herself appears in the proceedings, and champions his or her cause. Similarly, in the case of Meme Vs. Republic (2004) 1 EA 124, the High Court observed that a party could be enjoined in a matter for the reasons that: i. Joinder of a person because his presence will result in the complete settlement of all the question involved in the proceedings. ii. Joinder to provide protection for the rights of a party who would otherwise be adversely afiected in law; iii. Joinder to prevent a likely course of proliferated litigation. We ask ourselves the following questions: a. What is the intended party’s state and relevance in the proceedings and b. Will the intended interested party sufier any prejudice if denied joinder.?” The above definition has the same import and content as the definition in the Supreme Court Act, Act No. 7 of 2011 and the Rules made thereunder. Section 23 of the Act provides that: 1. Any person entitled to join as a party or liable to be joined as a party in any proceedings before the Court may, on notice to all parties, at any stage of the proceedings, apply for leave to intervene as a party. 2. An application under this Rule shall contain information ona. The identity of the person interested in the proceedings: b. A description of that person’s interest in the proceeding: c. Any prejudice that the person interested in the proceeding would sufier if the intervention were denied: and d. The grounds or submissions to be advanced by the person interested in the proceeding, their relevance to the proceeding and the reasons for believing that the submissions will be useful to the Court and difierent from those of the other parties.” 9. I have gone through the Supporting Afidavit and it is not clear when the Intended Interested Parties became aware of the dispute. I have also gone through the averments in the said supporting afidavit and with due respect it appears to the court that they have taken over the Appellants’ case. The Trial court held that the transfer of the suit property to the 1st Appellant and subsequent sub-division and sale to third parties was illegal and should be cancelled. 10. This is the gist of this Appeal. How will the Intended Interested Parties assist the court to settle all questions arising in the suit?. They ought to have sought to be enjoined in the suit in the Trial court. 11. I find that the Application is merely intended to delay this Appeal. 12. I find no merit in this application and the same is dismissed with costs to the Respondents. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1369/eng@2025-03-20 3

page 3 of 4

DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT KAJIADO THIS 20TH DAY OF MARCH 2025. L. KOMINGOI JUDGE. In The Presence Of: Ms. Wambui for the Appellant. Mr. Nabende for the Respondents. N/A for the Interested Parties. Court Assistant – Mutisya. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1369/eng@2025-03-20 4

page 4 of 4

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.