Marituai Karingithe & 2 Others v Simon Ndungu Supeyo & Another; Priscilla Pereso Lembaka & 5 Others (Intended Interested Parties/Applicants)

(In respect of the Notice of Motion application dated 19th February 2026 seeking joinder of interested parties/Applicants post judgement) Introduction 1. Before this Court is the Notice of Motion application dated 19th February 2026, brought by the 1st to 6th Intended Interested Parties/Applicants. The application is brought pursuant to Articles 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 40, 47, 48, 50 & 159 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21, Order 1 Rule 10(2), Order 12 Rule 7, Order 22 Rule 22, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 , and all other enabling provisions of the law. 2. Through the said application, the Intended Interested Parties/Applicants seek the following orders: a) SPENT b) THAT the Judgment of this Honourable Court delivered on 9th December, 2019 together with all consequential orders (including the eviction and costs orders) be set aside ex debito justitiae. c) THAT the 1st to 6th Intended Interested Parties/Applicants, be joined as Plaintiffs/Applicants in this suit. d) THAT upon joinder, the suit be heard de novo and/or be reinstated for a fresh hearing and determination on merit. __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCC 372/2017 2

page 2 of 10

e) THAT the costs of this Application be provided for. 3. The application is premised on the grounds set out on the face of the Motion and is further supported by the Affidavit of Priscilla Pereso Lembaka, sworn on 19th February 2026, with the authority of her co-applicants. The gravamen of the Applicants' case is that they are direct beneficiaries of the Estate of the late Karkise Ole Mosiro and are lawful occupiers of the suit property, LR No. Ngong/Ngong/845. They contend that they were wrongfully and unlawfully excluded from the proceedings in this suit, despite their direct and material interest in the subject matter. 4. The Applicants further aver that the judgment of this court, delivered on 9th December 2019, which issued consequential orders for eviction, adversely affects their proprietary and beneficial interests to the property. They maintain that this judgment was issued in their absence and without their knowledge, thereby condemning them unheard in direct violation of their constitutional rights to a fair trial, natural justice, equality, and the right to property as protected under the Constitution. 5. According to the Applicants, they only became aware of the impugned judgment in December 2025 when unidentified persons sent by the Defendants entered upon the land, demolished their homes, and caused __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCC 372/2017 3

page 3 of 10

destruction. Consequently, they argue that they have a bona fide and arguable case, and that it is in the interest of justice that the judgment be set aside, they be joined as necessary parties, and the suit be heard afresh on its merits. 6. In response to the Applicants’ Notice of Motion dated 19th February 2026, the 2nd Defendant/Respondent, Joseph Crespers Supeyo Tumpes, filed a Replying Affidavit in May 2026 on behalf of the Respondents and their beneficiaries. The 2nd Defendant opposes the application on the basis that the dispute was conclusively heard and determined, rendering the issues raised by the proposed Interested Parties res judicata. 7. The underlying dispute concerns two adjacent land parcels: NGONG/NGONG/845, owned by the Defendants/Respondents (the Supeyo family), and NGONG/NGONG/846, owned by the Plaintiffs (the Karkise family). The Defendants maintain that the Plaintiffs fraudulently annexed parcel 845 by superimposing survey documents onto it and subdividing it for sale. 8. Judgment regarding parcel NGONG/NGONG/845 was delivered in favor of the Defendants on 9th December 2019, and a subsequent application for review by the Plaintiffs was dismissed on 21st May 2020. Although the __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCC 372/2017 4

page 4 of 10

Plaintiffs lodged a Notice of Appeal dated 26th May 2020, their application for a stay of execution was withdrawn on 4th December 2023, and the Notice of Appeal itself was officially marked as withdrawn and dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 8th March 2024. Execution orders by way of eviction were issued by the court on 24th June 2024, after which boundary verification was carried out on the ground by the County Government Surveyor in the presence of representatives from both families. 9. Additionally, in Kibera CM Criminal Case No. 366 of 2014, a judgment delivered on 25th September 2023 established that mutation form No. 347882 for parcel NGONG/NGONG/20075 was forged; including the signature of a deceased individual, Randinda Olole Mosiro, leading to fraudulent subdivisions overlapping onto parcel 845. 10.In opposing the present motion, the 2nd Defendant points out that the 1st to 6th Interested Parties lay their claim on the suit premises as beneficiaries of the Estate of Karkise Ole Mosiro, who was the 1st Plaintiff. Since their proprietary interests were fully represented by the Plaintiffs throughout the primary suit, they are barred from re-litigating concluded issues. Furthermore, any titles claimed by the Interested Parties within parcel 845 __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCC 372/2017 5

page 5 of 10

derive from forged mutations, making the application an attempt to validate fraudulent transactions. 11.Ultimately, the 2nd Defendant submits that the application dated 19th February 2026 constitutes an abuse of the court process brought in bad faith to defeat execution and delay or prevent the Respondents from enjoying the fruits of their judgment. Directions 12.The parties submitted orally affirming their positions as expressed in their pleadings respectively. Issues for determination 13.I have carefully considered the Proposed Interested Parties’ Notice of Motion application, the supporting affidavits, the replying affidavit on record, and the oral submissions by the respective learned counsel. This court finds that the sole issue arising for determination is whether an application for joinder of the Interested Parties is legally maintainable postjudgment, after the suit has been heard, determined, and the appellate process concluded. Analysis and Determination __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCC 372/2017 6

page 6 of 10

14.The Applicants moved this Court seeking to be joined as Interested Parties and, upon joinder, to have the judgment rendered herein set aside. 15.The statutory foundation for the joinder of parties is anchored under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, which provides 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 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 the questions involved in the suit, be added." 16.A plain and contextual interpretation of the phrase "at any stage of the proceedings" presupposes that there are ongoing or live proceedings before the court. When a trial has reached its finality, judgment pronounced, and the decree issued, the "proceedings" before the trial court come to an end. 17.The law on post-judgment joinder of an interested party is well settled in Kenya. The Supreme Court of Kenya in Everton Coal Enterprises Limited v. __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCC 372/2017 7

page 7 of 10

Rose Wakanyi Karanja & 5 Others [2023] KESC 98 (KLR) (Application No. E026 of 2023) settled this position emphatically, holding that a party can only be joined into active and pending proceedings. The Supreme Court observed that: "An application for joinder of parties can be filed only in pending proceedings; that the power of the court to add a party to proceedings can be exercised at any stage of the proceedings either before, or during the trial; and that Order 1 Rule 10(2) contemplates an application for amendment or joinder of parties where proceedings are still pending before the court." 18.In the instant matter, the record reveals that the primary suit was fully heard and determined on its merits way back in the year 2019. The judgment was subsequently subjected to review which application for review was declined by the court. 19.Consequently and logically so, there are no "pending proceedings" before this court in respect of the main dispute. The litigation was concluded, and the court exhausted its mandate. Consequently, the proposed Interested Parties cannot be joined to proceedings that are legally ‘dead’ and concluded. __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCC 372/2017 8

page 8 of 10

20.In the circumstances, the application to join the suit is bad in law, incompetent, and an abuse of the process of this court. Obviously, the prayer to set aside the judgement, which was dependent on the joinder of the Applicants into the matter automatically fails. This court therefore finds that the Notice of Motion Application dated 19th February 2026 is entirely devoid of merit. 21.Accordingly, I make the following orders; a) The Proposed Interested Parties' Notice of Motion application dated 19th February 2026 be and is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety. b) The costs of the application are awarded to the Respondents. It is so ordered. Dated Signed and Delivered Virtually this 24th Day of September 2026. M.D. MWANGI JUDGE In the virtual presence of: Ms. Katana h/b for Mr. Kithi for the Applicants N/A by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants Court Assistant: Alex __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCC 372/2017 9

page 9 of 10

M.D. MWANGI JUDGE __________________________________________________________________ RULING ELCC 372/2017 10

page 10 of 10