Wilson Ndirangu Muriuki v Githunguri Constituency Ranching Co. Ltd & Another; Richard Gakungu Wainaina (Interested Party)

4. Leave to join the suit as an interested party 5. Leave to respond to the pleadings. 6. Review of the judgment and its consequential orders as well as their setting aside and/or vacation. 2. The grounds are set out on the face of the application and through a supporting affidavit sworn by Richard Gakunga Wainaina sworn on 7.8.2024. The interested party deposes that he has an interest in the subject property of this suit, whose judgment and subsequent decree were rendered on 1.2.2024 and 19.4.2024 as per annexures marked RGW (1) & (2). 3. The proposed interested party deposes that his interest is that he is a joint owner of the said property together with the 2nd defendant, after the said land was allocated to them by the 1st defendant in this matter, as per a share certificate attached as annexure marked RGW (3) 4. The interested party deposes that he was never notified or involved in the hearing of the suit; thus, he was denied his right to be heard before adverse orders could be made against him, as enshrined in the Constitution. 5. The interested party deposes that he has now been robbed of his right unless the orders sought are granted to safeguard such right. 6. The application is opposed through grounds of opposition dated 6.11.2025 and a replying affidavit sworn on 18.11.2025 by Wilson Ndirangu Muriuki. He states that he Page 2 of 8

page 2 of 8

bought the suit land in 1984 from a ballot no. 2122 holder who had purchased if form the 1st defendant by the name of Kiarie Thuo, and in 1992, he managed to obtain a certificate of lease, bearing the ballot number, under his name from the 1st defendant. 7. The plaintiff deposes that after his part was encroached upon by the 2nd defendant, he sued him, who proceeded to defend himself. 8. The plaintiff deposes that in view of the evidence tendered before the court by the 1st defendant, the interested party has absolutely no genuine claim over the suit land, for he has no genuine ownership document in respect of the Suitland; otherwise to join the suit or grant the orders sought would be a mere waste of the court’s time. 9. In the grounds of opposition, the plaintiff reiterates that the interested party lacks locus standi; the document produced by the 2nd defendant relates to a different plot but not the Suitland; and that the 2nd defendant has since approached the Court of Appeal on appeal from the judgment. 10. In the 2nd application dated 9.7.2025, the plaintiff seeks dismissal of the 1st application for lack of basis and for nonservice. The reason site on the face of the application and in a supporting affidavit sworn by Wilson Muriuki on 9.7.2025. 11. It is deposed that, other than obtaining a court order regarding the application from the police, he was never served with the application; otherwise the decree of the Page 3 of 8

page 3 of 8

court after the delivery of the judgement had been extended, the court is fuctus officio, the interested party is pursuing a wrong plot, and he should file a different suit if he has any cause of action. 12. The court record does not seem to have a replying affidavit by the interested party to the 2nd application. The interested party relies on written submissions dated 8.9.2025. 13. On the other hand, the plaintiff relies on written submissions dated 16.9.2025. reliance as placed on Wachira Karani Vs Bildad Wachira, Nyeri High Court Civil Case No. 101 of 2011 regarding lack of service of court process. 14. As to locus standi, the plaintiff relies on Michael Munene Njogu & Others vs Benard Githinji & Others, Kerugoya ELC No. 151 of 2013; Francis Kariuki Muruatetu & Another vs Republic & Others (2016) eklr and Absolom Opini Mathenge Vs James Obega ELC No. 243 of 1987. 15. The threshold to be met in an application to join a suit as an interested party was set in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance Vs Mumo Matemu & others (2019) EKLR and in Francis Kariuki Muruatetu & Another Vs Republic & Others (2016) eklr. They include, inter alia, a demonstrable stake or interest in the matter which is not remote or far-fetched. Page 4 of 8

page 4 of 8

16. In this matter, the interested party alleged stake and personal interest in the matter are traced to an attached share certificate, which the plaintiff disputes as referring to a totally different suit /property as the one he holds a certificate of lease just by the 1st defendant and which the 2nd defendant had trespassed into, leading to the suit. 17. An interested party other than one with a stake in the proceedings, though he or she was not a party to the cause ab initio, has to show that they shall be affected by the decision of the court either way it is made, as held in the Mumo Matema case. 18. In the Muruatetu case, the court said that the personal interest or stake must be set out in the application; it must clearly be identifiable and must be proximate enough to stand apart from anything that is merely peripheral. 19. The court said that the prejudice to be suffered by non- joinder must also be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court with clarity and not something remote. Joinder of an interested party is not a matter of right but at the discretion of the court. 20. In Ag vs David Ndii & others (2021) KESC 17 (KLR) the court said that enjoinment is not a matter of right but is at the discretion of the court hence sufficient grounds must be laid before the court. 21. The attached share certificate by the interested party was allegedly issued to him and Gabariel Kanyua Wainaina Page 5 of 8

page 5 of 8

on 12.3.2010 for Ballot NO. 1556 and not for Ballot No. 2122, which led to the issuance of Title No. Ruiru /Ruiru West Block 1/2122 in favour of the plaintiff, to which the 2nd defendant objected. 22. The 1st defendant produced a certified copy of the registrar extract to show that the plaintiff was the owner of the suit land. The 2nd defendant's counterclaim was dismissed by the court. 23. The leadership of the 1st defendant confirmed that parcel No. 1556 is different from the plaintiff's parcel. The interested party seems to be alleging co-ownership of the land with the deceased party, Wainaina Muturi. There is no evidence that the interested party has a relationship with the title held by the plaintiff. The court in the civil case find the intended interested party has no demonstrable personal stake or interest in the suitland to be entitled to joinder join the suit post-judgment. 24. Similarly, the plaintiff has confirmed that the decree of the court was executed; hence, there is nothing capable of being stayed by this court since substantial loss or damage is the cornerstone of stay, as held in James Wangalwa & Another Vs Agnes Naliaka Cheseto (2012) KEHC 1094(KLR). 25. The intended interested party has not demonstrated any evidence of development, possession or occupation on the suit land which the plaintiff has demolished. No valuation Page 6 of 8

page 6 of 8

report, photographs, surveyor's report and/or letters from the allocating authority have been shared with the court to confirm that the interested party had any strike on the subject property before the execution of the decree or filing of the suit. 26. Lastly, there is no evidence that the interested party, upon issuance of a share certificate in 2010, took possession, developed the same or followed up with the 1 st defendant to be issued with a certificate of lease for the subject land. More importantly, the interested party has not shared any survey or land registrar's report that the plots No. 1556 and 2122 share the same position on the ground. 27. The upshot is that I find the application lacking merit. As to the 2nd application, the court finds no basis given the earlier proceedings herein where the plaintiff participated without seeking to have the issue of service of the order and the application heard and determined in limine. The application is dismissed with no orders as to costs. 28. Any existing court orders are hereby vacated. File marked closed save for post-judgment application. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED ON 23rd SEPTEMBER,2026. HON C.K NZILI JUDGE In the presence of ; Page 7 of 8

page 7 of 8

Mr. Kamata for the plaintiff Miss Adoyo9 for Nyamange for interested party No appearance for defendants Page 8 of 8

page 8 of 8