keelc-2025-07584

defaulted on a loan. She stated that the Defendant ofiered the family the option to buy back the property and made instalment payments to the Defendant. 4. She further stated that, together with the Plaintifi, she has been managing the suit property, paying utility bills, and operating a juice business. She asserted that she would be adversely afiected if she is not included in the court proceedings. The Plaintifi ’s Case 5. The Plaintifi filed a replying afidavit dated 4th July 2025, in opposition to the application. He stated that he purchased the suit property in 1976, and it was registered in his name and that of his late wife. He further stated that he renovated one of the houses on the suit property and built another. 6. He stated that the Applicant is his daughter and resides on the suit property due to their relationship, and therefore, she could not have acquired it through adverse possession. He also noted that the Applicant was not a party to the Novation of Contract dated 7th September 2000, and has never made payments under that contract. In conclusion, he stated that the application was filed in bad faith and should be dismissed. 7. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Applicant’s Submissions 8. The Applicant filed her submissions dated 26th August 2025. 9. On her behalf, Counsel submitted that both the Applicant and the Plaintifi have acquired the suit property through adverse possession. It was further submitted that the Plaintifi acknowledged that the Applicant has been residing on the suit property and her claim for adverse possession is therefore not far-fetched. To support his submissions, reliance was placed on Order 1, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the cases of Charles Ondieki Onchwati & 3 Others v Nakuru County Government & another [2019] KEELC 2044 (KLR) and Nyangwara & 29 others v Thande (Sued in her capacity as an administrator of the Estate of Solomon Kiragu Thande) & another; Otieno & another (Intended Applicant) [2022] KEELC 13632 (KLR). 10. As at the time of writing this ruling, the Respondent had not filed his submissions as directed. Analysis and Determination 11. Having considered the application, the respective afidavit, and the submissions by the Applicant, the only issue that arises for determination is whether the Applicant should be included as a co-plaintifi in the Instant Suit 12. Order 1 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that:All persons may be joined in one suit as Plaintifis in whom any right to relief in respect of or arising out of the same act or transaction or series of acts or transactions is alleged to exist, whether jointly, severally, or in the alternative, where, such persons brought separate suits, any common question of law or fact would arise. 13. Order 10(2) of the said Rules 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 https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7584/eng@2025-10-31 2

page 2 of 3

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 to enable the court to efiectually and completely to adjudicate upon or settle all questions involved in the suit, be added.” 14. The Applicant argued that she has acquired the suit property through adverse possession in the same manner as the Plaintifi and should therefore be included as a co-plaintifi. She claimed that she has occupied the suit property since 1976 and runs a juicing business there. The Plaintifi maintained that her presence on the suit property is due to the father-daughter relationship, a claim the Applicant has not contested 15. In the case of Civicon Limited vs Kivuwatt Limited & 2 others (205) eKLR, the Court of Appeal referred to O’Hare & Hill Civil Litigation 7th Edition, where the authors stated as follows:“ One cannot be added as a Plaintifi unless one gives consent in writing.” 16. It is not in dispute that the Applicant is claiming ownership of the suit property through adverse possession. In my considered view, the Applicant should have filed a suit against the Defendant to assert her ownership claim. 17. In view of the foregoing, I find that the application is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs. RULING SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025. ………………………… HON. T. MURIGI JUDGE In the presence of: Suna for the Interested Party Ahmed – Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7584/eng@2025-10-31 3

page 3 of 3