Mire v Merit Development Limited & another (Environment and Land Case E605 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3084 (KLR)

2. The application was premised on grounds that it had come to the attention of the applicant that Rubis was carrying out construction on the suit property hence has a direct interest in the property and the firm of Milton Mugambi Imanyara t/a Mugambi Imanyara & Co. Advocates had obtained judgment in respect of legal fees relating to the suit property, and also has an identifiable legal interest in the subject matter of these proceedings. That the joinder will enable the court efiectively adjudicate on the matter. The applicant further indicated that it would be necessary to amend the plaint to capture the involvement and interests of the proposed Interested Parties in one suit so as to avoid multiplicity of suits and/or confiicting decisions arising from parallel proceedings touching on the suit property. 3. The application was opposed by the 1st respondent via a replying afidavit sworn by Kantilal V. M. Kerai, the director. He deponed that both parties that sought to be enjoined were agents of the 1st Defendant who is well capable of defending the suit. That both Rubis Energy PLC and Milton Mugambi Imanyara t/a Mugambi Imanyara & Co. Advocates had no proximate and identifiable stake in the suit property being that Rubis was a lessee just but a lessee with the 1st respondent being the owner of the suit property, and the advocates had rendered services in previous suit where the parties arrived at a settlement in regards to payment of legal fees extinguishing any claim, entitlement, or interest they may have previously had in relation to the subject matter herein. Applicant’s submissions. 4. In support of his application, Counsel filed submissions dated 11th May 2026 submitted that there was no documentary evidence on record to indicate that such a settlement with the Mugambi Imanyara t/a Mugambi Imanyara & Co. Advocates had taken place to extinguish the interest of the advocates. That the issues raised of settlement will require interrogation of evidence which will only be made available in trial. 5. On the issue of Rubis PLC being enjoined counsel submitted that being a lessee, Rubis was a proprietor on the suit property with rights that would be afiected by the determination of the suit property hence a necessary party to the proceedings. That all the applicants needed to prove was prima facie nexus as between the proposed interested parties and the subject matter which they had. They placed reliance on the case of Civicon Limited Vs Kivuwatt ltd & 2 others (2015)eKLR 1st defendant’s submissions 6. The 1st defendant/respondent filed submissions dated 8th May 2026 reiterating the contents in its replying afidavit. The argument raised is that the issues in dispute can be fully determined between the existing parties without the inclusion of Rubis Energy PLC and Militon Mugambi Imanyara t/a Mugambi Imanyara. Counsel argued that the proposed joined advocates were acting under instructions from the 1st Respondent, as they are agents of a disclosed principal and cannot be sued in their own capacity as agents. That the advocates cannot be sued where there is a disclosed principal which in this case was the 1st Respondent in this case. The 1st Respondent at all times was the registered owner of the Suit Property and that the averments by the applicant that the firm has an interest in the matter, were false as the interest that the firm had over the suit property has since been extinguished through the entering of a settlement agreement. The same was submitted for Rubis energy PLC who had never been in any dispute over the suit property and had not participated in the former suit. That inclusion of Rubis will be a duplicate as https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3084/eng@2026-05-14 2

page 2 of 4

the 1st respondent is the legally registered owner of the suit property. Counsel argued that the two are not necessary parties as the dispute can be determined by the court without their involvement relying in what was stated in the case of Haji & another v Kazungu & 49 others; Koi & 172 others (Interested Parties) (Environment & land Case 23 of 2017) [2023] KEELC 18883 (KLR) (13 July 2023) (Ruling) where the court dealt with such an issue and afirmed that a party will only be joined where their presence is necessary to enable the court to efiectually determine the issues between the parties. Analysis and determination 7. Having look at the application, the replying afidavit and the submissions the issue for determination is whether the application is merited 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 Application to 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 Plaintif or Defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to be joined whether as Plaintifi or Defendant, or whose presence before Court may be necessary in order to enable Court efiectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added”. It is therefore evident that a party seeking joinder must demonstrate how the suit would afiect his interests. In the case of Direct Line Assurance Co. Ltd Vs Attorney General [2011] eKLR the Court pronounced itself as follows: - “The law is that only those who are entitled to a claim or be afiected by the outcome can legitimately seek protection from the Court. The applicant has not demonstrated how the legal notice would afiect its interests and that of the public it purports to represent. It is not every person who can approach the Court for redress of his grievances but persons with legitimate interests and stake in the outcome and the efiects of the decision complained against.” Further the Supreme Court in Francis K.Muruateru & Ano v Republic & 5Others [2016] eKLR set out the key elements for consideration in an Application for joinder as an Interested Party as follows:- 8. i. Joinder of a person because his presence will result in the complete settlement of all the question involved in the proceedings; ii. Joinder to provide protection for the rights of a party who would otherwise be adversely afiected in law. iii. Joinder to prevent a likely course of proliferated litigation. In the case before this Court the plaintifi avers to be the registered owner of the suit property and has sued the 1st defendant on the basis that it acquired title to the suit property fraudulently through institution of a suit as against persons without legal title to the suit and not enjoining the plaintifi the suit. The plaintifi seeks to have declaratory orders that the suit property belongs to them, cancellation and nullification of the title registered in the 1st defendants name and injunctive orders as against the defendants The applicant has asserted that the proposed interested parties involvement will aid in the determination of the dispute. Th plaintifi has not demonstrated any identifiable interest that the proposes interested parties have and how their involvement will afiect the outcome of the case. This is a case where the court is tasked to ascertain the proprietary rights of the 1st defendant as against the plaintifi’s claims of fraud. What the court need is to interrogate evidence from the currently registered owner of the suit property being the 1st defendant on how he acquired title that led to the judgement in ELC 164 OF 2017. The plaintifi on the other hand is to substantiate the allegations of fraud on the https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3084/eng@2026-05-14 3

page 3 of 4

1st defendant’s title if the court is to nullify the title. Allegations of fraud must be proved and in this case the onus of is on the plaintifi. It is my view that a just determination will be arrived with the involvement of the parties on record as the proposed interested parties will not be able to shed light on the issue of title and the fraud allegations hence their involvement is not necessary. The court is enjoined under Section 1 A and B of the Civil Procedure Rules to give efiect to the overriding objectives which include; the just determination of the proceedings; the eficient disposal of the business of the Court; the eficient use of the available judicial and administrative resources; and the timely disposal of the proceedings, and all other proceedings in the Court, at a cost afiordable by the respective parties. 9. It would be ineficient disposal of the business of the court to add to a suit parties whose interests are already suficiently represented in this case only Rubis Energy PLC have an interest which will be represented by the 1st respondent. The firm of advocates Milton Mugambi Imanyara t/a Mugambi Imanyara has no interest in this matter that has so far been proven by the applicant. In the circumstances I find that the applicant has failed to prove why the proposed intended interested parties should be enjoined in this suit Final disposition 10. For the reasons as above, I make the following orders; i. That the Notice of motion dated 15th April 2026 is without merit and is hereby dismissed. ii. Costs will be in the cause. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT NAIROBI ON THIS 18TH DAY OF MAY 2026. MOHAMMED N. KULLOW JUDGE Ruling delivered in the presence of: N/A for the Plaintifi/Applicant Mr. Wanyoike for 1st Respondent Mr. Wabwire for 2nd Respondent Philomena W. Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3084/eng@2026-05-14 4

page 4 of 4