Jannah Properties Limited v National Environment Management Authority & 5 others

2. c. That the Honourable Court be pleased to issue such further orders/directions and orders as may be necessary to give eect to the orders granted for the foregoing prayers and/or are in the interest of justice. d. That the costs of this application be borne by the Petitioner/Respondent. The application is premised on the grounds appearing on its face together with the supporting adavit of Wilfred Wanyonyi Masinde, the acting Deputy Director, Planning Compliance and Enforcement of the Applicant, sworn on even date. The 3 Rd Respondent/applicant’s Case 3. The deponent contends that the inclusion of the Applicant in this suit is an abuse of the court process since the Applicant was not involved in the demolitions on the Petitioner’s property. He explained that the Cabinet, pursuant to a Special meeting held on 30th April 2024, issued a directive for people living within 30 meters of the riparian corridor to vacate due to the devastating impact of the oods. He stated that the directive was based on the results of a country-wide mapping exercise that identied fragile areas. 4. He further stated that the Applicant was neither involved in nor authorized the demolition of the Petitioner’s property. He asserted that there is no evidence to show that the 3rd Respondent approved any development on riparian land. He maintained that the Petitioner has not disclosed a cause of action against the Applicant. The Petitioner/respondent’s Case 5. The Petitioner led a replying adavit sworn by Faith Wambui Njuguna, 4th November 2024, in opposition to the application. 6. The deponent averred that the 1st Respondent approved the Petitioner’s proposed project subject to several conditions, including obtaining a change of user from the City Council of Nairobi. She further averred that, before commencing the construction projects, the Petitioner applied to the City Council of Nairobi for a change of user for the property, and the council approved it along with the development approvals. 7. That despite obtaining approvals from the Applicant, the Applicant, in the company of the District Ocer and with the help of a bulldozer, demolished a section of the perimeter wall. She maintained that the Applicant is a necessary party because its approvals were crucial to constructing the development on the Petitioner’s property. He maintained that its participation will assist the court in resolving the dispute. The 3 Rd Respondent’s Submissions 8. The 3rd Respondent led its submissions dated 30th May 2025. 9. On behalf of the 3rd Respondent, Counsel submitted that the only issue for determination is whether the 3rd Respondent should be struck out from the instant Petition. 10. Counsel submitted that the 3rd Respondent is not a necessary party to this suit as the intended demolition directive was not the result of the Applicant’s actions but of third parties. It was submitted that the basis for including the 3rd Respondent was to demonstrate the Petitioner’s compliance with legal and regulatory standards, whereas the issue for determination is whether the suit property is built on riparian land. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18361/eng@2025-12-11 2

page 2 of 4

11. Counsel contends that the 3rd Respondent should be discharged from the proceedings herein because the responsibility of determining whether a property is riparian land and for enforcing related laws and regulations lies with the 2nd Respondent. Counsel submitted that the Petitioner has not alleged any violation of the law by the Applicant. 12. Counsel further submitted that the Petitioner has not disclosed any reasonable cause of action against the 3rd Respondent and therefore it is non-suited. Counsel argued that the Petitioner can pursue its claim without involving the 3rd Respondent. 13. Counsel further argued that the development approvals issued by the Applicant at the time were subject to certain conditions which Petitioner fullled and that they were of no probative value. The Petitioner’s Submissions 14. The Petitioner led its submissions dated 23rd June 2025. 15. On behalf of the Petitioner, Counsel submitted that the only issue for determination is whether the application is merited. 16. Counsel submitted that the 3rd Respondent is a necessary party for the eective resolution of the dispute herein. Counsel further submitted that the Applicant issued the approvals that were essential to the construction of the suit property. 17. Counsel argued that excluding the Applicant would undermine the judicial process by preventing an examination of the 3rd Respondent’s conduct in issuing the development approvals. Counsel also argued that such an examination is essential to show that the Petitioner complied with legal and regulatory standards. Counsel maintained that whether the development plans have probative value is a matter to be decided at trial. 18. In conclusion, Counsel submitted that discharging the 3rd Respondent would prejudice the Petitioner’s legal rights and undermine enforcement of the judgment. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the application with costs. Analysis And Determination 31. Having considered the application, the respective adavits and the rival submissions, the issue that arises for determination is whether the 3rd Respondent should be struck out from this Petition. 32. The principles governing the striking out of pleadings or parties are well settled. Striking out is a draconian remedy which be should exercised sparingly. A Respondent may be struck out where it is shown that no reasonable cause of action exists against them, that they are not a necessary party, or that their inclusion would amount to an abuse of the court’s process. 33. In the case of Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu & 5 others (20-14) eklr, the court emphasized that joinder of parties must serve a clear purpose in the determination of the issues before the court. 34. In the matter at hand, it is not in dispute that the 3rd Respondent issued development approval to the Petitioner. The 3rd Respondent argued that the approvals have no probative value. The Petitioner, on the other hand, contends that the projects on the suit property were developed pursuant to the approvals issued by the 3rd Respondent. At this stage, the court is not required to determine the probative value of the approvals alleged to have been issued by the 3rd Respondent. Based on the foregoing, I am satised that the 3rd Respondent is a necessary party to these proceedings. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18361/eng@2025-12-11 3

page 3 of 4

44. In the end, I nd that the application dated 15th October 2024 is not merited and the same is hereby dismissed. RULING DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 11 TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025 . ……………………… ..….… HON. T. MURIGI JUDGE In The Presence Of: Njuguna holding brief for Mumia for the Petitioner Alfred holding brief for Ms Kalimi for the 3rd Respondent Ms Makori for the 2nd Respondent Ms Andia holding brief for Ngara for the 1st Respondent Court assistant – Ahmed https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18361/eng@2025-12-11 4

page 4 of 4