Katilem (Suing as the Legal Administrator of the Estate of Tongolik Katilem - Deceased) v County Government of West Pokot; Rutto & 6 others (Intended Defendant) (Environment and Land Case E033 of 2019) [2026] KEELC 2232 (KLR)

were never parties to the proceedings and were not afiorded the right to be heard, that they shall sufier dispossession, injustice, and their participation in the suit is necessary for the just and efiective determination of all issues on the suit property. 3. The applicants assert that the suit property is unregistered community land, where the respondent has threatened to evict them from approximately 100 acres. The applicants aver that they reported to the area chief, who informed them of this suit, where the respondent concealed and misrepresented facts to obtain orders. 4. Further, the applicants depose that the said judgment has converted community land into private land. Copies of the authority to plead on behalf of the other applicants and photographs of the applicants' homes are attached as AR1 and AR2-a-j. 5. In the replying afidavit sworn by the respondent on 18/2/2026, the respondent deposes that the application is defective, misconceived, a non-starter, and an abuse of the court process since the applicants have not met the threshold for the orders sought. 6. The respondent deposes that the applicants are acting as agents of the defendant and are not bona fide litigants, the suit property has been subject to active litigation since 2019, and it is untrue for the applicants to allege that they were not aware of the proceedings. 7. The respondent further deposes that the 6th applicant is her sister-in-law, who has concealed her identity to mislead the court since she has been living on her late brother's property and has been well aware of the suit proceedings. 8. Again, the respondent deposes that the other applicants are strangers to the suit since they are not residents of Lomut and do not have a legitimate claim over the suit property. For the 1st applicant, the respondent deposes that he resides at Mwisho Farm in Trans Nzoia County and his interest in the suit property is false, contrived, misplaced, and in bad faith. The respondent avers that the photographs are misleading and do not depict the suit property, and are legally incompetent. 9. The respondent deposes that all witnesses, including those of the defendant, were heard and a judgment was subsequently delivered on 29/11/2023. Costs for the suit were taxed on 23/2/2024, and the applicants have taken nearly 2 years to file the instant application, which amounts to inordinate delay and is caught up by the doctrine of laches. 10. The respondent avers that the suit property is not community land since the court determined the ownership, and the application is therefore res judicata and amounts to another appeal, since the defendant had filed Civil Appeal No. E061 of 2024, which the court struck out. 11. Further, the respondent avers that the allegations of an alleged eviction are false, and strangers should not be allowed to set aside a judgment already appealed against. The respondent has attached the copies of her identification card, decree, certificate of costs judgment, and a notice of appeal as annexures marked as ACK-1. 12. The applicants have also filed without leave of court a supplementary afidavit sworn on 18/2/2026, attaching the electronic certificate as annexure, marked AR1. 13. The respondent relies on the written and oral submissions dated 18/2/2026 and 19/2/2026. Mr. Teti, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the application is untenable, defective, and an abuse of the court process and contrary to Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, since joinder is not granted where a final judgment has been delivered. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2232/eng@2026-04-22 2

page 2 of 4

14. Regarding the stay of proceedings, learned counsel submitted that there are no live proceedings to be stayed as the suit was fully determined, a decree extracted and costs taxed, and an appeal filed, and therefore, joinder cannot be granted. Learned counsel relied on Joseph Njau v Maina Chege & others [2002] eKLR and submitted that the court is functus officio and the applicants have not met the threshold to reopen the case. 15. Further, learned counsel submitted that the application is res judicata contrary to Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act since the court already determined the issues raised by the applicants. Counsel submitted that the application has been filed after an inordinate delay, which the applicants have not explained. According to the learned counsel, the allegations that the applicants were not aware of the suit are not substantiated, and equity aids the vigilant and not the indolent. 16. On the allegations of eviction, counsel submitted that there are no orders of eviction since the surveyor was only to visit the suit property for purposes of valuation. Learned counsel submitted that the applicants are only eliciting sympathy from the court, since the enforcement of the decree is against the defendant and not the applicants. Finally, the counsel submitted that the photographs attached are contrary to Section 106 of the Evidence Act and are of no probative value. 17. In a rejoinder, Mr. Serebe, advocate for the applicants, submitted that the applicants claimed that part of the community land had been converted to private land. 18. Order 1 Rules 1, 3, & 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules provide for who may be joined as a plaintifi and or as a defendant, and substitution and addition of parties, during the life of a suit. 19. Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules obligates the court to consider whether the presence of the applicant may be necessary to enable the court efiectively and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. 20. In JMK v MWM & Another (2015) eKLR, the Court of Appeal stated that Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules contemplates an application for amendment or joinder of parties where proceedings are still pending before the Court. The court further held that an application for joinder of parties can be filed only in pending proceedings. 21. The court cited the Court of Appeal of Tanzania, where, while considering the equivalent of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules in Tang Gas Distributors Ltd v Said & Others (2014) EA 448, stated that the power of the court to add a party to proceedings can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings; that a party can be joined even without applying; that the joinder may be done either before, or during trial; that it can be done even after judgment, where damages are yet to be assessed; that it is only when a suit or proceedings has been finally disposed of and there is nothing more to be done that the rule becomes inapplicable. There are instances where joinder applications may be considered even in finalised and determined suits. 22. In the case of Bellevue Development Company Limited v Vinayak Builders Limited & another [2014] KEHC 5507 (KLR), the court held that joinder of parties is possible after judgment in cases of representative suits; or substitution of one or more parties, for instance, in case of death, or incapacity of a party, or change of status of a party; or in execution process. The court also held that any postjudgment joinder of parties must surmount any possible constitutional objections under the rules of natural justice and the principle of the finality of litigation. The applicants do not fall under any of the above categories. 23. In Muruatetu & another v Republic; Kenya National Commission on Human Rights & 2 others (Interested Parties); Death Penalty Project (Intended Amicus Curiae) [2016] KESC 12 (KLR), the court https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2232/eng@2026-04-22 3

page 3 of 4

held that a personal interest or stake that the party has in the matter must be set out in the application. The interest must be clearly identifiable and must be proximate enough to stand apart from anything that is merely peripheral. The prejudice to be sufiered by the intended interested party in case of nonjoinder must also be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court. The applicants have failed to meet this threshold. 24. In this matter as it is, the suit is already determined, and the defendant filed a notice of appeal dated 14/12/2023, which they later sought to be struck out by an application dated 5/5/2024. Notably, the defendant also filed an application dated 7/5/2024 seeking a stay of execution of the same judgment, which the court dismissed vide a ruling dated 15/7/2024. 25. From the above analysis, this court finds that it is functus officio, the prayer for stay of execution is res judicata, and the current application is not only lacking merit but also an abuse of the court process. It is dismissed with costs to the respondent. 26. Orders accordingly. RULING DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT KITALE ON THIS 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026. HON. C. K. NZILI JUDGE, ELC KITALE In the presence of: Court Assistant - Dennis. Teti for the respondent - present. Kisembe for the applicants - present. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2232/eng@2026-04-22 4

page 4 of 4