Maina (Suing on Behalf of 127 others) v County Government of Nairobi Executive Committee & 5 others (Environment and Land Judicial Review Miscellaneous Application E036 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4501 (KLR)

3. The deponent states that it is only fair and just to allow him to join on behalf of the Association to protect their interests. 4. The Application is opposed by the ex parte Applicant through a response dated 26.11.2025 to the extent that Article 50 of the Constitution grants the right of a party to be heard in a matter. 5. The ex parte applicant states that the participation should, however, be limited to the amended Notice of Motion he has brought, but not to afiect any other matter as may have been finalized and determined by the Court in suit no. 365 of 2017, as appears to be the intended interested party’s intent or motive, since the said intended interested party was not among the 127 Plaintifis in that matter, which was finalized through a consent recorded on 15.5.2019. 6. The ex parte Applicant states that the Notice of Motion that he has filed seeks mandamus orders and not any other matter or decision otherwise the Court of functus Oficio in respect of attempts to relitigate issues that may have been determined in the past in the former suit. 7. The ex parte applicant states that it is also unclear that the squatters initially moved the Court in their individual capacity as squatters, so that it only became imperative to have the squatters register an association for purposes of the issues bordering on the locus standi of the said squatters in their individual capacity as opposed to the said greviants locus as looked at/ examined from the perspective of juridical authority. 8. The ex parte applicant states that it is not true and it is insincere on the part of the intended interested party to allege that it shall be afiected by the orders the Court may grant in this matter, given that no substantive orders with respect to the subject matter is being sought in view of the consent judgment, which finalized the matter, and that all what remains is its implementation by way of the sought orders of enforcement, after the respondents failed to comply with the said consent on record. 9. The primary pleadings by the ex parte Applicant are the amended Notice of Motion dated 16.7.2025. It seeks orders of mandamus against the respondent compelling them to honour the decree dated 23.3.2000 and which was re- issued on the 15.5.2019 by resettling one hundred and twenty-eight plaintifis, as per the list of members attached within 90 days of the order, on land parcel number 12979/1 after they were allegedly forcefully moved from parcel number LR 209/12010 Mathare and promised the reselling to pave way for school construction financed by the German Government. 10. The amended Notice of motion is anchored on a statutory statement dated 12.5.2025 and later amended on 16.7.2025, and a verifying afidavit initially sworn on 12.5.2025. 11. The crux of the complaint is that after filing HCCC No. 1871 of 1992, later on ELC No. 365 of 2017, the parties entered into negotiations and eventually recorded a consent order signed on 23.3.2000 and later adopted as a decree of the Court. 12. The ex parte applicant deposes that the respondents, in preparation to relocate them, built a public toilet within the suit land and gave them letters of allotment of the land, but has efiortlessly thereafter been thwarted by the respondent hence are unable to enjoy the fruits of their judgment. 13. Based on the foregoing, the intended interested party now seeks to join the proceedings. 14. In Kioko and Another –vs- Ali and Another (Civil Appeal E067 of 2021(12026) KECA 1198 (KLR) (26th June 2026 (Judgment) the Court said that the audi alteram partem rule comprehensively governs the right of a party to a dispute to be heard and that the rule is to the efiect that any party that may be the outcome of a dispute ought to be allowed to ventilate their case as held in Pashito Holdings –vsPaul Nderitu Ndungu and Others (1997) eKLR, hearing the other side is a rule on natural justice. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4501/eng@2026-07-08 2

page 2 of 4

15. The Court cited Amon –vs- Raphael Tuika Son (1996) 1 ALL ER 273, where Lord Devlin objected that what makes a person or a necessary party is merely what he has relevant evidence to give or he has an interest in the correct solution of some question, but to ensure that he should be bound by the results of the action. The Court above said that the question in the circumstance must be one which cannot be efiectually and completely settled unless that applicant is a party. 16. In Muruatetu and Another –vs- Republic (2016) KESC 12 (KLR) (28TH January 2016) (Ruling), the Court said that a party seeking to join proceedings as an interested party has to meet the following elements: a. Disclose the personal interest or stake in the matter, b. The interest must be clearly identifiable, proximate but not peripheral. c. The prejudice to be sufiered by non-joinder must be outlined and demonstrated to the Court’s satisfaction and must not be remote. d. The intended participation and relevance must be outlined in the application. 17. The Court also said that an interested party would join proceedings on terms that the overriding interest or stake remains that of the primary or principal parties before the Court, and so the issue to be determined by the Court, which fiows from the pleadings presented by them or as framed by the Court for such pleadings. 18. The Court further said that an interested party could not frame its own fresh issues or introduce new issues for determination by the Court, or bring up a matter like a stakeholder forming an altogether new issue. 19. Order 53 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides that at the hearing of a Notice of Motion, any person who decides to be heard in opposition to the motion and appears to be a proper person to be heard shall be heard notwithstanding that he has not been served with the notice or summons. 20. The intended interested party seeks to join the proceedings as the chairman of a registered society under the Societies Act. The exparte applicant faults the juridical character of the Applicant. 21. The Societies Act is not a legal person with the capacity to sue or be sued. Locus standi is an issue of the law and touches on the jurisdiction of the Court as held in LSK –vs- C.C.K & Others. Citing with approval Mumo Matemu –vs- Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance and others (2014) eKLR Section 41(2) of the Societies Act defines a representative in relation to a society as a person who the Court is satisfied has been duly approved in writing by the society to represent it. 22. Other than the registration certificate, the intended applicant has not attached any authority signed by the management committee or the Board Resolution authorizing him or appointing him as a chairman with the capacity to represent the society in these proceedings with respect to the substratum of the matter in issue. See Kipsiwo Community Self Help Group –vs- AG and Others( ELC NO. 9 OF 2013). 23. An interested party must demonstrate its stake in a matter to be allowed to join a suit. In AG –vs- David Ndii and Another (2021) KESC (eKLR), the Court held that enjoining is not as of right but also the discretion of the Court based on suficient grounds showing the personal interest or stake, the case to be put across in Court, and the prejudice to be sufiered in the absence of a joinder. There is no evidence that the interested parties were privy to the consent order or protesting leading to the consummation. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4501/eng@2026-07-08 3

page 3 of 4

24. Evidence of the interested parties being allotees of the land or evictees thereto is not disclosed. There is also no demonstration of how the interested parties will be afiected or sufier if the orders sought to enforce the decree are granted without their participation in the matter. 25. For the foregoing reasons, the Court finds the application lacking merit. It is dismissed with cost to the exparte applicant. 26. The respondents are granted a last chance to file and serve responses to the amended Notice of Motion within 7 days from this date hereof. 27. Parties to equally file written submissions to the motion. 28. Judgment on 16.9.2026 29. Orders accordingly. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 8TH DAY OF JULY 2026 HON. JUSTICE C.K. NZILI JUDGE In the presence of : Mr. Achola for the Defendant Ms. Theuri for Mr. Oduk for the Interested Party Ex parte applicant present Julius- Court Assistant https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4501/eng@2026-07-08 4

page 4 of 4