Mathambo v Munene & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E008 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3337 (KLR) (28 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3337 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NYAHURURU ENVIRONMENT AND LAND CASE E008 OF 2024 LN MBUGUA, J MAY 28, 2026 BETWEEN SERAH MUMBI MATHAMBO ................................................................ PLAINTIFF AND PAUL MUNENE ............................................................................. 1ST RESPONDENT VIRGINIA NYIHA ........................................................................ 2ND RESPONDENT LAZARUS KARIUKI .................................................................... 3RD RESPONDENT SIMON MUCHIRI ........................................................................ 4TH RESPONDENT AND KARURI KAHURA .......................................... PROPOSED INTERESTED PARTY RULING 1. Before me is a notice of motion application dated 24.9.2025 filed by one KARURI KAHURO, a proposed interested party. He desires to be joined in these proceedings as an interested party and that he be allowed to respond to the proceedings herein. The application is premised on the grounds on the face of the application and the supporting afidavit of the applicant. He avers that his father, one KAHURO NGOGE is the one who purchased the suit property L.R. Laikipia/Ol’arabel/286 from plaintifis father, one CORNELIO GICHERU WACHIRA, and that the applicant has peacefully been in occupation of 5 acres within the suit land. Thus he has a stake in the land dispute. 2. Several other afidavits have been filed herein, one by the applicant, another by Simon Barusei and Franklin Mukiri while the third one was filed by Samuel Ngugi Wanjeru. They appear to have been filed randomly without leave of the court. They are hereby expunged from the records. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3337/eng@2026-05-28 1
page 1 of 2
3. The plaintifi has opposed the application vide her replying afidavit dated 15.10.2025 averring that the applicant only lived on the suit property when the two had a romantic relationship, but when the relationship became sour, he left, adding that the claim of the interested party is time barred, as he alleges to have bought the land in year 1987. She avers that the primary parties have already entered into a mediation agreement. 4. I have considered the rival arguments. The issue falling for determination is whether the applicant should be joined in these proceedings as an interested party. The issue of joinder was addressed in the Supreme Court case of Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemo & 5 others [2014] eKLR as follows; “ An interested party is one who has a stake in the proceedings, though he or she was not party to the cause ab initio. He or she is one who will be afiected by the decision of the Court when it is made, either way. Such a person feels that his or her interest will not be well articulated unless he himself or she herself appears in the proceedings, and champions his or her cause….” 5. The applicant avers that his father bought 5 acres out of the suit property from the father of the plaintifi and that he lives on the said land. At this stage of the trial, the court cannot interrogate the issue as to whether his claim is time barred or not, and whether he left the land or not. It sufices to note that he has stated the nature of his claim. It is only when he is on board this suit that he can be able to articulate his claim. 6. On the mediation agreement, it is noted that the court did refer the matter for mediation, of which on 4.9.2025, the court was informed that the matter was coming up for adoption of the mediation agreement, but such adoption has not taken place. 7. In the circumstances, I do find that the application dated 24.9.2025 is partially merited in the following terms; 1. The applicant is hereby allowed to be joined in these proceedings as an interested party. 2. The applicant is granted 14 days to file his pleadings (statement of claim). 3. On the setting aside of the mediation agreement, the court declines to allow this prayer as the claim of the applicant is yet to be set out formally in a pleading. He is at liberty to move the court formally once he files the relevant pleading. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NYAHURURU THIS 28TH DAY OF MAY 2026 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS. LUCY N. MBUGUA JUDGE In the presence of: M/S Wahome for plaintifi M/S Monica Njuguna for the Interested Party Bedan/Vanessa C/As https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3337/eng@2026-05-28 2
page 2 of 2