Ole Supeyo & 2 others

4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The Applicant prays for admission in this suit as an Interested Party as well as costs of the application. 2. The Application is premised on grounds that the proposed interested party is a bona de purchaser for value of Kajiado/Olchoro-onyore/30804 pursuant to a Sale Agreement dated 6th December 2018. Following the fullment of all the conditions and terms of the Agreement, the suit property title was allegedly registered in the proposed interested party’s name. To facilitate ecient resolution of this matter, it is stated that the proposed interested party ought to be allowed into the proceedings as the outcome will aect his legal interest. 3. The Application is supported by the Adavit of Bernard Kipkemoi Leitich sworn on 14th May, 2025 whose averments echo those on the face of the Motion. 4. The 1st Defendant, Robert Moseti Onkwani opposes the Application for joinder through his Replying adavit sworn on 25th October, 2025. Even though he admits signing the Agreement dated 6th December, 2018 concerning sale of the suit property whose purchase price was Kshs. 37,500,000/=, he claims that he rescinded and terminated it as its terms were never honoured by the proposed interested party. The 1st Defendant contends that the title to the suit property, which remains registered in his name, could not lawfully have been transferred to the Applicant in light of the prohibitory orders issued by this Court on 21st July 2021, which continue to bar any dealings with the title. Consequently, it is asserted that the Applicant is not a necessary party to these proceedings, as no valid or sustainable claim exists between him and the parties herein. It is further averred that, owing to the Applicant’s non-compliance with the agreement, his alleged claim against the 1st Defendant never crystallized. 5. The Plainti, through the Replying Adavit of Moses Ntiamasas Supeyo sworn on 18th July 2025, seeks the dismissal of the Application with costs on the ground that it is frivolous, misconceived, and an abuse of the court process. It is further deposed that no documentary evidence has been tendered to demonstrate that the Proposed Interested Party paid the full purchase price of Kshs. 37,500,000/ =, or that the title to the suit property is registered in his name. According to the Plainti, an ocial search dated 18th August 2020 shows that the suit property is registered in the 1st Defendant’s name. Additionally, it is contended that any transfer to the Applicant could not have been eected owing to the existence of a court order issued on 21st May 2020. 6. It is further contended that the joinder of the Applicant to this suit would embarrass the Plainti, occasion delays in the hearing of the case, and result in manifest injustice through the derailment of the proceedings, particularly in light of the Applicant’s failure to demonstrate any legal or equitable interest in the suit property. Accordingly, the Plainti urges the Court to exclude the Applicant from these proceedings, as his participation would not aid in the determination of any issues or questions of fact or law, his alleged claim, if any, lying against the 1st Defendant. 7. Through a Further Adavit sworn on 17th November, 2025, the Applicant deposes that his payment of Ksh.2,500,000/= being part of the purchase price gave rise to a benecial and equitable interest over the suit property. The Applicant maintains that his joinder in these proceedings will prevent multiplicity of litigation, protect third party expectation arising from his payment and enable adjudication of all competing claims relating to the suit property in one forum. The Applicant asserts that failure to enjoin him in this suit will deny him a meaningful opportunity to protect his equitable and benecial interest in the suit property, prejudicing him but also impede fair and complete determination of all questions aecting title and interests over the suit property. Court directions https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18600/eng@2025-12-18 2

page 2 of 5

The Application was dispensed through written submissions pursuant to directions of the Court. This directive was only complied with by the Counsel for the Proposed Interested Party and the 1st Defendant who led their submissions dated 17th November, 2025 and 9th December, 2025 respectively. The detailed submissions which form part of the record of this court reiterate the party's position with respect to the Application. The court has considered them in writing this ruling. Issues for determination 8. The singular issue for determination after a careful assessment of the Notice of Motion Application, the pleadings as well as submissions on record is whether the Proposed Interested Party has met the legal threshold for joinder as an interested party. Determination 9. The discretionary power of this Court to enjoin parties to a suit is derived from Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, which stipulates 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.” 10. To clarify the denition of an Interested Party, the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Communications Commission of Kenya & 4 Others v. Royal Media Services Limited & 7 Others, Petition Number 7 of 2014, eKLR, is relevant. The court in the said case opined as follows; “ An interested party is one who has a stake in the proceedings, though he/she was not a party to the cause ab initio. He/she is one who will be aected by the decision of the Court when it is made, either way a person feels that his interest will not be articulated unless he or she himself/herself appears in the proceedings and champions his or her cause.” 11. Counsel also sought to rely on the case of Sikor Estate Limited & 5 others v. Agricultural Development Corporation & Another (2015) eKLR. In addressing the matter of an Interested Party seeking to be added to a suit, Justice Sila Munyao made the following statement: “ In my view, for one to convince the Court that he/she needs to be enjoined to the suit as an Interested Party, such person must demonstrate that it is necessary that he/she be enjoined in the suit, so that the Court may settle all questions involved in the matter. It is not enough for one to merely show that he/she has a cursory interest in the subject matter of litigation. Litigation invariably aects many people. A Judgment or order in most cases does not only aect the litigants in the matter. It does have ramication for others as well and one may very well argue that these others have an interest in the litigation. That is a fair argument, but a mere interest, without a demonstration that the presence of such party will assist in the settlement of the questions involved in the suit, is not enough to entitle one be enjoined in the suit as an Interested Party.” 12. In the present case, the Applicant bases his claim on a Sale Agreement dated 6th December 2018 entered into with the 1st Defendant. The Applicant claims to be a bona de purchaser for value and https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18600/eng@2025-12-18 3

page 3 of 5

asserts that he has paid Kshs. 2,500,000/= out of the purchase price of Kshs. 37,500,000/=. However, both the Plainti and the 1st Defendant contest the validity of this transaction. The 1st Defendant avers that the agreement was rescinded due to non-compliance, while the Plainti points to an ocial search indicating the title remains in the 1st Defendant's name while existing court orders that barred any transfer. 13. The critical question is whether the joinder of the Applicant is necessary for the Court to eectively and completely adjudicate upon the questions involved in the main suit, which involves the Administrators of the Estate of Rahab Kamaso Supeyo and the 1st Defendant. 14. The Applicant’s grievance appears to be a specic contractual dispute regarding the alleged breach of the Sale Agreement by the 1st Defendant. This is a distinct cause of action from the Plainti’s claim against the Defendants. As noted in Apex Finance International Limited & Another v Kenya AntiCorruption commission [2012] KEHC 2042 (KLR): “ On the questions of proper parties being before the court, the Supreme Court of Nigeria had this to say in the case of Goodwill and Trust Investment Ltd and another vs. Witt and Bush Ltd (supra): “It is trite law that to be competent and have jurisdiction over a matter, proper parties must be identied before the action can succeed, the parties to it must be shown to be proper parties whom rights and obligations arising from the cause of action attach. The question of proper parties is a very important issue which would aect the jurisdiction of the suit in limine. When proper parties are not before the court the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the suit, and, “where the court purports to exercise jurisdiction which it does not have, the proceedings before it, and its judgment will amount to a nullity no matter how well reasoned.” 15. The introduction of the Applicant’s contractual claim against the 1st Defendant into these proceedings would likely complicate the issues and delay the determination of the main suit. The Applicant has admitted to only paying a fraction of the purchase price, and the transfer of title is contested. Requiring the Court to determine the validity of the rescission of the contract between the Applicant and the 1st Defendant in this case would detract the court from the core issues between the Plainti and the 1st Defendant. 16. This position is supported by the holding of F. Gikonyo J in Lucy Nungari Ngigi & 128 others v National Bank of Kenya Limited & another [2015] KEHC 6117 (KLR) who opined as follows; “ .. joinder of parties may be refused where such joinder: will lead into practical problems of handling the existing cause of action together with the one of the party being joined; is unnecessary; or will just occasion unnecessary delay or costs on the parties in the suit. In other word, joinder of parties will be declined where the cause of action being proposed or the relief sought is incompatible to or totally dierent from existing cause of action or the relief. The determining factor in joinder of parties is that a common question of fact or law would arise between the existing and the intended parties.” 17. Applying the principles in Lucy Nungari Ngigi (Supra), I nd that enjoining the Applicant would cause unnecessary delay in the determination of this case. The Applicant’s claim essentially seeks specic performance or damages for breach of contract against the 1st Defendant. This relief is incompatible with the ow of the current proceedings. The Applicant is at liberty to pursue his remedies against the 1st Defendant in a separate suit where his rights under the Sale Agreement can be fully ventilated without encumbering the present litigation. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18600/eng@2025-12-18 4

page 4 of 5

18. Consequently, I nd that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that his presence is necessary to enable the Court to adjudicate the issues raised by the Plainti. His interest, while perhaps valid in a separate context, does not meet the threshold for joinder in this specic suit. 19. The upshot is that the Proposed Interested Party’s Notice of Motion dated 14th May, 2025 is hereby dismissed with costs to the Plaintis and the 1st Defendant. It is ordered. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT KAJIADO VIRTUALLY THIS 18TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2025. M.D. MWANGI JUDGE In the virtual presence of: Mr. Kibet h/b for Mr. Owino for the 1st Defendant Ms. Kasyoka h/b for Mr. Githumbi for the Plainti N/A by the intended Interested Party and the 2nd Defendant Court Assistant: Mpoye M.D. MWANGI JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18600/eng@2025-12-18 5

page 5 of 5