Shah & another v Murithi t/a Squad Three Services & 6 others; Ndaba & another

MARGARET WAMBUI ... PROPOSED 4TH ….... PROPOSED 5 TH KENYATTA DEFENDANT MARY KAMWENDE MUNGAI DEFENDANT ESTATE OF SIMON NJENGA NDABA .… 1ST INTERESTED PARTY CHIEF LAND REGISTRAR ………..……… 2ND INTERESTED PARTY RULING 1. What is before the Court for determination is the Plaintiffs’ Notice of Motion application dated the 16th December 2025 in which they seek the following Orders: a) That Erick Kamau representative of Kenyatta, the Estate as the legal of Margaret Wambui Kenyatta be and is hereby joined in this suit as the 4th Defendant. ELC LAND CASE NO. E258 OF 2025 Page 2 of 11 Ruling

page 2 of 11

b) That Mary Kamwende Mungai be and is hereby joined in this suit as the 5th Defendant. c) That the Plaintiff’s amended plaint be deemed as duly filed and served upon payment of the requisite fees. d) That the Plaintiff be granted leave to effect service of the pleadings upon the 4th Defendant. e) That costs of the application be in the cause. 2. The application is premised on grounds on its face and on the 2nd Plaintiff’s supporting affidavit. He avers that he is the registered proprietor of Land Reference Number 209/178/20 pursuant to Grant No. I.R 89013 registered as No. I.R 89013/1, as a tenant in common together with the Estate of the 2nd Plaintiff and the 1st Interested Party. Further, that on 4th November 2025, as ordered by this Court and with the assistance of the OCS Parklands, they were able to remove goons and trespassers on the suit property, who ELC LAND CASE NO. E258 OF 2025 Page 3 of 11 Ruling

page 3 of 11

claimed to be working under the instructions of the Estate of Margaret Wambui Kenyatta. 3. He claims that the next day, on 5th November 2025, the proposed 5th Defendant filed ELCLC No. E556 OF 2025 Erick Kamau Kenyatta v Nitichandra Meghji and Lila Chimanlal and two concurrent applications seeking ex-parte orders to take over the suit property, both of which were declined. Further, that in blatant abuse of Court process, he filed a separate Miscellaneous application seeking the very same orders in ELC Misc. Application No. E351 OF 2025, Erick Kamau Kenyatta v Nitinchandra Meghji and Lila Chimanlal where the Court also declined to issue ex parte orders. 4. He insists that the 5th proposed Defendant has trespassed and interfered with the Plaintiffs’ quiet possession of the suit property by purporting to be acting under the instruction of the proposed 4th Defendant. He points out that she has appeared at the suit property several times and that the ELC LAND CASE NO. E258 OF 2025 Page 4 of 11 Ruling

page 4 of 11

Plaintiffs conducted a motor vehicle search of her vehicle and they were able to ascertain her name. 5. He reiterates that the Plaintiffs have a cause of action against the proposed 4th and 5th Defendants thus their presence is necessary for the complete determination of the matters in dispute. Further, that the existing Defendants shall not be prejudiced as none has filed their defenses and the matter has not been fixed for hearing. He contends that since pleadings have not closed, the Plaintiffs are entitled to amend the plaint as of right in accordance with Order 8 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. He annexed the Plaintiffs’ proposed amended plaint and urged the Court to admit it. 6. The application is not opposed and parties did not file submissions. Analysis and Determination 7. I have considered the instant Notice of Motion application and the only issue for determination is whether the 4 th and 5th proposed Defendants should be joined as Defendants herein ELC LAND CASE NO. E258 OF 2025 Page 5 of 11 Ruling

page 5 of 11

and whether the Plaintiff’s draft amended plaint should be admitted, with leave to serve the 4th and 5th Defendants. 8. The Plaintiffs claim that the proposed 4 th Defendant has interfered with the suit property, on alleged instructions of the proposed 5th Defendant. Further, that the 5th Defendant filed ELCLC No. E556 OF 2025 and ELC Misc. Application No. E351 OF 2025 against them, seeking ex parte orders on the basis that he is the registered proprietor of the suit property, which orders were denied. On this basis, they argue that they have a cause of action against the said parties. 9. On joinder, Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules stipulates as follows: “The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of 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 plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of ELC LAND CASE NO. E258 OF 2025 Page 6 of 11 Ruling

page 6 of 11

any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added.” 10. In Yawa & 35001 others v Chome (Suing as the Administrator of the Estate of Mumba Chome Ngala (Deceased)) and 19 Others (Civil Application No. 100 of 2018) KECA 35 KLR the Court of Appeal stated as follows: “The rationale behind the joinder of any party to proceedings is to have on board a necessary party for purposes of determining the real issues in dispute. Perhaps, this is reason behind the general guiding principle that joinder of a party like amendment of pleadings, should be freely allowed and at any stage of the proceedings, provided that it will not result in prejudice or ELC LAND CASE NO. E258 OF 2025 Page 7 of 11 Ruling

page 7 of 11

injustice to the other party which cannot properly be compensated for in costs.” 11. On amendments, leave is not required herein as pleadings have not yet closed. Kenya’s jurisprudence is rich on the principle that amendments ought to be freely allowed if they would not prejudice the other party. To this end, in Tarmohamed v Mariakani Holdings Limited & Another [2022] KECA 122 (KLR), the Court of Appeal stated that: “….rules that apply to amendment of pleadings will apply, namely that amendments should be liberally allowed, if they can be made without injustice to the other side, or where such injustice can be compensated by costs.” 12. From the facts before me, noting that the Defendants are yet to file their respective defences, I find that there is no reason why the Plaintiffs should not amend their Plaint. 13. Further, on perusal of the pleadings herein including documents filed while associating myself with the decisions cited, I find that the Plaintiffs have actually demonstrated ELC LAND CASE NO. E258 OF 2025 Page 8 of 11 Ruling

page 8 of 11

why the proposed Defendants are necessary parties herein since they also stake a claim over the suit property, which is registered in the Plaintiffs’ names. Further, I note there has also been an issue of trespass over the said land and the proposed Defendants did not object to joinder despite being duly served. It is my considered view that since they stake a claim over the suit property, their involvement in these proceedings is necessary to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon as well as settle all questions involved in the suit. Further, this will also avoid a multiplicity of suits. 14. Based on the facts as presented and relying on the legal provisions I have quoted while associating myself with the cited decisions, it is my considered view that the proposed Defendants will also be affected by any decision emanating from this suit. ELC LAND CASE NO. E258 OF 2025 Page 9 of 11 Ruling

page 9 of 11

15. It is against the foregoing that I find the Notice of Motion application dated the 16th December, 2025 merited and will allow it, in the following terms: a. The proposed 4th and 5th Defendants be and are hereby joined in these proceedings as 4th and 5th Defendants respectively. b. The Plaintiffs to file and serve their amended Plaint upon the newly joined 4th and 5th Defendants within fourteen (14) days from the date hereof. c. Upon service, the 4th and 5th Defendants do file and serve their respective Defences within thirty (30) days from the date hereof. d. Costs in the cause. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 16TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 CHRISTINE OCHIENG JUDGE In the presence of: ELC LAND CASE NO. E258 OF 2025 Page 10 of 11 Ruling

page 10 of 11

Waithaka holding brief for Ned Malakwen for Plaintiffs in E258 of 2025 and Defendants in E556 of 2025 Court Assistant: Joan ELC LAND CASE NO. E258 OF 2025 Page 11 of 11 Ruling

page 11 of 11