The Lake Region Micro-Micro-Credit Enterprises t/a Kenya International Fisheries Development and Fish Suppliers Agency v Attorney General of Republic of Kenya & 5 others; Odhiambo & another

RULING 1. Before me is the chamber summons dated 4th April, 2025 led by the interested parties/applicants, and it is expressed to be brought under Orders 1 Rules 10 and 14, Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules, Sections 3A of the Civil Procedure Act seeking the following orders:1. Spent. 2. That the honourable court be pleased to join the Interested Parties/Applicants as an interested party to the suit and to be allowed to participate in the proceedings. 3. Spent. 4. That the honourable court be pleased to issue a temporary injunction against the respondents herein whether by themselves, agents, servant and/or persons acting under their instructions from selling, subdividing alienation or otherwise interfering, attaching or dealing in whichever way with Plot No. 1188 Kasarani pending the hearing and determination of this suit. 5. The costs of this application be provided for. 6. The honourable court be pleased to make such further orders as it may deem just and expedient in the circumstances of this case. 2. The application is premised on the grounds on its face, and in the supporting adavit of the 1st interested party/applicant sworn on even date. The interested party/applicant deposed that together with her sister, they are the benecial owners of all that property known as plot no. 1188 Kasarani duly registered in the name of Moses Timothy Odhiambo under membership No. 1495 registered on the 13th March, 2006. 3. She further deposed that succession proceedings for the estate Moses Timothy Odhiambo were instituted vide Milimani High Court Succession Cause No. 780 of 2018 and the conrmed grant of letters of administration issued on 19th June, 2024. 4. She deposed that Wyclie Ochieng, uncle to the interested parties/ applicants herein led an objection application which was never prosecuted but was dismissed. She added that the plainti/respondent through deceit, colluded with others not before this court and caused the irregular and illegal sale of Property Plot no. 727 share certicate 2286 registered with Chieko Housing Limited which matter is pending at Milimani Magistrate Court in MCELC No. 384 of 2021. 5. The 1st interested party/applicant further deposed that a guarantor in this case Wyclie Ochieng had no powers and/or capacity to dispose of property for a loan he guaranteed and thus, the actions of the guarantor amounted to an illegality rendering the entire sale and transfer void ab initio. She further deposed that it was necessary for them to be joined in this suit to enable and assist the court to eectually and competently determine questions involved in the dispute. 6. She deposed that as the benecial owners of the suit property, any determination made in this suit will defeat their interests in the suit property. 7. The 6th defendant/respondent led his replying adavit sworn on 13th July, 2025. He deposed that he is the benecial owner having purchased the suit property known as NAIROBI BLOCK 171/425, and commenced the registration of the same in his name. He further deposed that he had conducted due diligence through the vendor, 4th defendant/respondent, who was the registered proprietor and https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18470/eng@2025-12-19 2

page 2 of 4

in lawful possession of the said property at the material time. He added that the intended interested parties/applicants have not demonstrated any registered interest in the suit property or any cause of action against him. 8. The 6th defendant/respondent further deposed that he had instructed his advocates to initiate appropriate proceedings for revocation or cancellation of the conrmed grant issued in Milimani High Court Succession Cause No. 780 of 2018, and that the present application by the intended interested parties/applicants does not meet the threshold for joinder under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, as their participation is neither necessary nor useful for the determination of the existing issues between the plainti and the defendants. 9. Further, that allowing the said joinder will cause undue delay, introduce unnecessary issues, and complicate proceedings to the detriment of parties who are already properly before the court. He urged the court to dismiss the application with costs. 10. The plainti/respondent led its replying adavit sworn on 17th April, 2025 by David Ochieng Opon, who is its Director. The plainti/respondent deposed that it followed the due process in acquiring and disposing o the suit parcel. Further, that the allegation by the interested parties/applicants that the suit property is part of the estate of Moses Timothy Odhiambo is misconceived and misguided. The plainti/respondent further deposed that the interested parties/ applicants were guilty of laches having taken 5 years since the matter in HCCC 119 of 2019 got dismissed to le the present application. It was averred that the instant application is an afterthought and ought to be dismissed with costs. 11. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The interested parties/applicants led their written submissions dated 9th July, 2025, the plainti/respondent led its written submissions dated 7th July, 2025 while the 6th Respondent led his submissions dated 13th July, 2025. 12. I have considered the application, the replies thereof and the written submissions led by the parties. The issue for determination is whether the interested parties/applicants should be joined in these proceedings. 13. Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules provides as follows:“ 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 plainti or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plainti or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court eectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added.” 14. In the case of Muruatetu & another V Republic; Katiba Institute & 5 others (Amicus Curiae) (Petition 15 & 16 of 2015 (Consolidated)) [2017] KESC 2 (KLR) the court laid down the guiding principles applicable in determining an application to be joined as an interested party. In its judgment under paragraph 37, it held as follows:“ The following elements emerge as applicable where a party seeks to be enjoined in proceedings as an interested party: One must move the court by way of a formal application. Enjoinment is not as of right, but at the discretion of the court; hence, sucient grounds must be laid before the court, on the basis of the following elements:- https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18470/eng@2025-12-19 3

page 3 of 4

The personal interest or stake that the party has in the matter must be set out in the application. The interest must be clearly identiable and must be proximate enough, to stand apart from anything that is merely peripheral. The prejudice to be suered by the intended interested party in case of non-joinder, must also be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court. It must also be clearly outlined, and not something remote. Lastly, a party must, in its application, set out the case and/or submissions it intends to make before the court, and demonstrate the relevance of those submissions. It should also demonstrate that these submissions are not merely a replication of what the other parties will be making before the court.” 15. It was the interested parties/applicants’ case that they are necessary parties to the suit since they were beneciaries to the suit land by virtue of the conrmed grant. The plainti/respondent on the other hand contends that the interested parties/applicants are not necessary parties to the suit since the suit property was a security for loan advanced to the deceased. 16. Further, the 6th defendant/ respondent argued that he was a beneciary to the suit property and that he had led an application for revocation of grant on the ground that he was a bonade purchaser for value having purchased the suit property from the 4th defendant. 17. This court has keenly perused the court record and it is not in dispute that the interested parties/ applicants were issued with a certicate of conrmation of grant of the deceased’s estate issued on 19th June, 2024 that listed them as the beneciaries of the estate. It is also not in dispute that the suit property forms part of the deceased estate. 18. It is this court’s view that the outcome of this case will surely have an impact on the deceased estate since there’s already a certicate of grant issued. I nd that the interested parties/applicants have an identiable stake to this suit and it would be in the interest of justice that they be joined in this suit so as to eectually decide the issues. 19. In the circumstance, the interested parties/applicants are joined to this suit as the 7th and 8th defendants respectively. Each party to bear its own costs. Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED & DELIVERED VIRTUALLY THIS 19TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025. HON. MBOGO C.G. JUDGE 19/12/2025. In the presence of: Mr. Benson Agunga - Court assistant Mr. Atanda for the Plainti/Respondent Mr. Muatine holding brief for Mr. Kamonjoh for the 4th and 5th Defendants/Respondents Ms. Wacheke Thindigua for the Interested parties/Applicants Mr. Mwangi holding brief for Mr. Wambugu for the 6th Defendant/Respondent https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18470/eng@2025-12-19 4

page 4 of 4