Rono

RULING 1. Before the court is an application dated 11/4/2025, seeking to have the proposed interested parties/ applicants join the suit as interested parties. The application is based on the reasons on its face and in supporting and supplementary adavits of Priscah Jelagat Buigut on behalf of the other proposed interested parties, who have delegated an authority to plead on her behalf. 2. The application is opposed through a replying adavit of Betty Rono, sworn on 15/5/2025, for being res judicata, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process. It is deposed that the applicants want to frustrate the respondents in the implementation of the award; otherwise, they have no known interest in the matter and further, they were not parties to proceedings before the National Land Commission, where all the substantive issues were dealt with. 3. The respondent deposes that the substratum of the matter was dealt with by the National Land Commission and that the role of this court is limited to the implementation of the award. The respondent deposes that the application is brought with the collusion of the respondent in the main application to stay these proceedings by all means; otherwise, an application is lying at the Court of Appeal as per annexure BR-2. 4. The respondent deposes that the 400 acres to be carved out are not occupied by the proposed interested parties and, as such, none will be evicted from the land. The respondent deposes that the application is not made in good faith. 5. In the supplementary adavit sworn on 17/6/2025, the proposed interested parties depose that they have an identiable stake in the matter, which will be canvassed in order for the court to fully settle all the questions and issues in the suit to avoid piecemeal litigation. 6. The applicants depose that they are bona de purchasers of land comprised of the suit property for over 30 years. Attached is the certied copy of the RIM and area list depicting the subdivisions, annexed as PJB-2. The applicants depose that from the area list, the proposed interested parties are Nos. 2, 24, 195, 190, 170, 146, 85, 125, 302, and 32, thereby praying that they have an immense stake in these proceedings. 7. It is deposed that the mother title ceased to exist as a result of the subdivisions and mutation, and individual owners have an identiable stake in these proceedings; otherwise, if not joined, they will be prejudiced under Article 50 of the Constitution by risking loss of their properties. The applicants depose that their joinder will assist the court in deriving important facts so as to reach a fair and just determination. 8. The issues calling for my determination are: (a) If the proposed parties t the description of interested parties. (b) If the intended parties are necessary parties to be joined in these proceedings. 9. An interested party has been described under Black's Law Dictionary, 8th Edition, as a party who has a recognizable stake and therefore a standing in a matter. 10. Rule 2 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013 denes an interested party as a person or entity that has an identiable stake or https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18743/eng@2025-07-30 2

page 2 of 4

legal intention or duty in the proceedings before the court but is not a party to the proceedings or may not be directly involved in the litigation. 11. In Francis K. Muruatetu & Another -vs- Republic & Others [2016] eKLR, the court cited Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance -vs- Mumo Matemu & Others [2014] eKLR, that an interested party as one who has demonstrated a stake in the proceedings, who will be aected by the decision either way; and will feel that his interest will not be well articulated unless he appears in the proceedings to champion his cause. See also Communications Commission of Kenya & Others -vs- Royal Media Services Ltd [2014] eKLR. 12. Order 1 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that the court has discretion to join a party to the proceedings. The parameters to consider were discussed in Meme -vs- Republic [2004] 1EA 124. The court said that joinder of a person is because his presence will result in the complete settlement of all the questions involved in the proceedings. It will also protect the rights of a party who would otherwise be adversely aected. Similarly, joinder will prevent the likelihood of the proliferation of litigation. 13. The tests to consider on joinder of parties were discussed in Kenya Medical Laboratory Technicians & Technologists Board -vs- Attorney General [2017] eKLR. The court observed that the test is not whether the joinder of the person proposed to be added as an interested party would be according to or against the wishes of the petitioner or whether the joinder would involve an investigation into a question not arising or the cause of action averred by the petitioner. The court held that the true test lies not so much in an analysis of what constitutes the applicant’s right, but rather in what would be the result on the subject matter of the action, if those rights could be established. 14. Further, the court said that it is the mandate of the court that, as far as possible, all matters in controversy between the parties be completely and nally determined and all malpractices of legal proceedings concerning any of the matters be avoided. 15. In Francis K. Muruatetu & Another -vs- Republic (supra), the court held that an applicant must move the court by way of a formal application. Joinder is not as of right but is at the discretion of the court. Sucient grounds must be laid before the court, based on the personal interest or stake. The stake or interest must be identiable. It must be proximate enough. The prejudice they would suer for nonjoinder must also be demonstrated and should not be remote. Lastly, a party must set forth the cause and or submit to the alleged interests and demonstrate the relevance of the same to the suit before the court. 16. In this application the respondent expresses fear or apprehension that the application is an afterthought, there is collusion with the respondent in the main application to derail the implementation of the award and that the application has been brought too late by the proposed intended interested parties, who were not even parties to the proceedings leading to the award in the rst instance and leave to join them would serve no purpose. 17. It is trite law that even if the applicants are allowed to join the proceedings as interested parties, the primary issues to be determined by the court remain those of the principal parties or as framed by the court. As held in Methodist Church of Kenya -vs- Mohamed Fugicha & Others [2019] eKLR, an interested party may not frame its fresh issues or introduce new issues for determination by the court. 18. Looking at the material presented by the applicants, I think they have demonstrated that they are necessary parties for the court to settle all the issues or questions involved in the matter. They have shown how they will be aected by the matter, either way it goes. The court is asked to adopt the award by the National Land Commission as a decree of the court. As held in Justin Kithinji Nderi & Others https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18743/eng@2025-07-30 3

page 3 of 4

-vs- Director of Public Prosecution [2020] eKLR, all that a party needs to demonstrate is that their interests go beyond merely being aected. 19. In this case, the intended parties state that they have a claim of their own as purchasers of the suit land. Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules requires such a party to show how necessary it will be for its participation to enable the court to eectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. The discretion reposes with the court. The relevance of the proposed interested parties to the matter is what is key. The respondent admits that where the 400 acres is to be carved out will not aect the proposed interested parties and that they will not be evicted. 20. The involvement of the proposed interested parties to know their fate, in my view, ts Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules. See also Aharub Ebrahim Khatri -vs- Nelson Marwa [2017] KEHC 7175 (KLR). The interest or stake of the intended parties is direct. They are likely to be aected by the decision of the court. Their interests are not being articulated by either the respondent or the applicant in the proceedings. See Yusuf Abdi Adan & Another -vs- Hussein Ahmed Farah & Others (Nairobi) Civil Case No. 100 of 2016. 21. The interests of the proposed interested parties are not remote. The interest is legal, identiable and demonstrable. They will be adversely aected by the decision. My nding is that it would be in the interest of justice to allow the applicants to participate as interested parties. The application is allowed. RULING DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT KITALE ON THIS 30TH DAY OF JULY 2025. In the presence of: Court Assistant - Dennis Okoth for applicant Gemenet for the respondent/applicant Obuya for respondent in the main application present HON. C.K. NZILI JUDGE, ELC KITALE. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18743/eng@2025-07-30 4

page 4 of 4