Karoki & 2 others v Murang’a County Land Registrar & 5 others (Land Case Petition E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 3688 (KLR)

BETWEEN NOAH MWANGI JOSEPH KAROKI ............................................. 1ST PETITIONER HENRY MURIGI NGUGI .............................................................. 2ND PETITIONER KENNETH NGIMA IRUNGU ....................................................... 3RD PETITIONER AND MURANG’A COUNTY LAND REGISTRAR ............................ 1ST RESPONDENT ATTORNEY GENERAL ............................................................... 2ND RESPONDENT NATIONAL LAND COMMISSION ............................................ 3RD RESPONDENT HON MARY WAMAUA WAITHIRA NJOROGE ..................... 4TH RESPONDENT MURANG’A COUNTY LAND SURVEYOR .............................. 5TH RESPONDENT DIRECTOR LAND ADJUDICATION AND SETTLEMENT .. 6TH RESPONDENT RULING 1. 2. This ruling is on the notice of motion dated 17-2-2026. The motion which is by the Petitioner is brought under Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 63(e) of the Civil Procedure Act, Orders 8 and 51 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules and all other enabling provisions of the law. The motion seeks the following orders. i. That the Petitioners be granted leave to amend the notice of motion dated 2-9-2025 and the petition upon such a period as the Court deems just. ii. That the amended notice of motion dated 2-9-2025 and amended petition be deemed as properly on record and the Respondents be at liberty to file further reply to the amended notice of motion dated 2-9-2025 and petition, if they desire; iii. That the Petitioners be granted leave to join/incorporate the Director, Land Adjudication and Settlement as the 6th Respondent and he be at liberty to file a reply to the amended notice of motion dated 2-9-2025 and the petition, if they so desire. iv. That the costs of this application be provided for. The motion is based on one ground and it is supported by the afidavit of the first Petitioner. The essence of the motion is as follows. One, there is need to amend the notice of motion to ensure that the court is fully is seized of the facts as well as the pleadings being fully particularized in the Petitioners cause of action. Two, arising from the response and the pleadings filed by the Respondents, it has become necessary to amend the motion and the petition dated 2-9-2025. Three, no prejudice will be occasioned to the Respondents as they too will be at liberty to amend their replying afidavits and the amendment will assist the Court in adjudicating on the issue in dispute. For the above and other reasons, the Petitioners pray that the motion be allowed. 3. The motion is opposed by the fourth Respondent in her afidavit dated 20-4-2026 in which she states as follows. One, the Petitioners have not introduced any new or credible evidence to depart from their https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3688/eng@2026-06-16 2

page 2 of 4

earlier position and their allegations against her remain speculative, unsubstantiated, and devoid of proof as the 4th Respondent has never authorized any encroachment, participated in subdivision, or engaged in any act of invasion, occupation or interference with the suit property known as Maragua/ Ridge/249 and/or Maragua/Ridge/810-914 original P. No. 57. Two, the 4th Respondent has not participated in any survey exercise, issuance of titles, or any administrative process concerning the suit land. Three, the Petitioners lack the requisite locus stand to institute or sustain these proceedings as they have failed to demonstrate any proprietary interest, legal right or enforceable claim over the suit property. Four, the suit land is privately held and the history of ownership and subdivision set out in her earlier afidavit remains uncontroverted. Finally, the amended pleadings do not raise any new legal or factual basis to warrant the grant of the orders sought against the 4th Respondent and the motion ought to be dismissed with costs. 4. I have carefully considered the motion in its entirety including the ground, the supporting afidavit by the 1st Petitioner and the replying afidavit by the 4th Respondent. I have not seen any written submissions by the parties. I find that the following issues arise. i. Whether the amendment sought ensures that the case is decided on substantive merits rather than technical defects. ii. Whether the amendment sought is in good faith. iii. Whether any prejudice or injustice will be occasioned to the Respondents. iv. Whether the law allows the amendment of Petitions. 5. On the first issue, I find that the amendment seeks to correct the suit parcel number to read Maragua/ Ridge/870 -914 originally Maragua/Ridge/57 instead of Maragua/Ridge/249. An error should not be allowed to derail the course of justice. The sought amendment will further the course of justice because instead of dealing with the wrongly quoted land, the court will deal with the relevant suit land. 6. As for the second issue, I find that the amendment sought is in good faith. It is not meant to mislead the court or gain any advantage over the Respondents but to rectify an error. 7. I have not found any prejudice that will be sufiered by the Respondents because they too will be able to amend their responses to conform to the amended petition. The amendment has been sought fairly early in the petition even before the pleadings have closed. 8. Finally, rule 18 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamentals Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules 2013 provides for the amendment of petitions. It states“ A party that wishes to amend its pleadings at any stage of the proceedings may do so with the leave of the Court.” 9. In conclusion and for the above stated reasons, I find merit in the motion dated 17-2-2026 which I allow in terms of prayers 1,2 and 3. Costs in the petition. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT MURANG’A THIS 16TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3688/eng@2026-06-16 3

page 3 of 4

M.N. GICHERU JUDGE. Delivered online in the presence of; Court Assistants – Antony Petitioners’ Counsel – Mr. Mathenge 4th Respondent’s Counsel – Mr. Yegon https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3688/eng@2026-06-16 4

page 4 of 4