Jane Njeri Mwaura v Nyakinyua Investments Limited & 6 others

under the misguided view that the application I was to address was the one dated 20/01/2026. However, on reviewing the records again and this being a matter transferred from the High Court I noted that it is the one brought by the 2nd Defendant and it is dated 02/06/2026. I hope I am now correct in that observation. 2) Accept my sincere apologies for the confusion created by myself even from the directions issued on 19/06/2026. Poleni. 3) Therefore, I have an Application dated 2/06/2026 brought under Section 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act Cap 22 Laws of Kenya, Section 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 1 Rule 10, Order 37 Rule 6(2) and Order 50 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and all enabling provisions of the law where the Applicant seeks the following: a) Spent. b) THAT the Honourable Court be pleased to issue an order that the Proposed 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants be enjoined as the 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants in this suit. c) THAT costs for this application be provided for. 4) The grounds upon which the Application is based are on the face of it and supported by the Affidavit sworn by Geofry Karunda Kinuthia on even date. He asserts that he is fully conversant with the facts of the dispute and competent to depose the Affidavit. He establishes that he is the registered proprietor of the suit properties known as RUIRU/MUGUTHA ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 2|Page

page 2 of 23

BLOCK 1/11506 and RUIRU/MUGUTHA BLOCK 1/11507, a fact supported by copies of the title deeds attached as “annexure GKK1”. He notes that the Plaintiff originally filed the suit including the proposed 5 th, 6th and 7th Defendants as parties, as evidenced by the copy of the Plaint dated 02/07/2025, attached as “annexure GKK2”. However, the Plaintiff subsequently filed an Amended Plaint on 12/08/2025, withdrawing the case against those proposed Defendants, which is annexed as “GKK3”. 5) In the affidavit he explains that the proposed 5 th, 6th and 7th Defendants were initially registered as proprietors of the suit properties before him, as shown by the green cards attached as “annexure GKK4”, and that he actually purchased the suit properties from the proposed 6th and 7th Defendants under a Sale Agreement dated 03/09/2025, annexed as “GKK5”. He contends that the matter is likely to proceed for hearing without the participation of the proposed 5 th, 6th and 7th Defendants, and that he cannot respond conclusively to all the issues raised in the Plaint without their joinder. Consequently, he maintains that their joinder is necessary to enable the honorable Court to effectively settle and justly determine all matters in controversy in the interest of justice, emphasizing that the Plaintiff will suffer no prejudice if the orders sought are granted. 6) The Application is opposed vide the Replying Affidavit sworn on 24/07/2026 ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 by the Plaintiff/Respondent, Jane Njeri 3|Page

page 3 of 23

Mwaura. The deponent maintains that the application is misconceived, legally untenable, and an improper attempt to expand the scope of the present proceedings by introducing a separate dispute not before the Honourable Court. She asserts that the Applicant's primary justification for the joinder that the proposed Defendants were previous registered proprietors from whom he acquired the properties does not satisfy the threshold for joinder under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. 7) She stresses that the core proceedings are strictly concerned with her claim to ownership of RUIRU/MUGUTHA BLOCK 1/11506 and RUIRU/MUGUTHA BLOCK 1/11507, the validity of their registration, and consequential reliefs such as eviction and permanent injunction against the person presently claiming ownership, alongside appropriate orders against the Land Registrar. Crucially, she highlights that no substantive reliefs or claims are presently sought against the Proposed 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants, pointing out that she had initially pleaded against them in her original plaint but deliberately filed an Amended Plaint withdrawing the claim against them, and that the Applicant cannot use a collateral application to revive claims she no longer pursues. 8) Furthermore, the deponent depones that the Applicant's argument that he cannot respond conclusively to the case without them is baseless and stems purely from his own contractual and evidentiary arrangements. She contends ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 4|Page

page 4 of 23

that any disputes regarding the purchase, consideration, representations, warranties, or indemnities between the Applicant and his vendors constitute a distinct collateral inquiry that cannot be forced onto her suit simply because the Applicant considers those parties useful to his defense. 9) Emphasizing that a party should not be joined merely to serve as a witness or provide information, she notes that the Applicant remains fully at liberty to rely on his sale agreements, title documents, and searches, or pursue independent indemnity proceedings against his vendors if so advised. Ultimately, the deponent asserts that the proposed joinder would unnecessarily complicate, delay, and inflate costs in the litigation, fails to meet the legal test for necessity, and that the application ought to be dismissed with costs in the interests of justice. Notably, the Replying Affidavit does not contain any formal annexures. 10) The proposed Defendants namely Teresia Wanja Nduati, Nancy Wakini Wachira, and Everlyne Wanjira Njau, Teresia Wambui Njenga also swore an amended joint Replying Affidavit on the 3/08/2026. In their Replying Affidavit they state that they are members of the 1 st Defendant, Nyakinyua Investments Limited, which allocated them land parcel RUIRU/MUGUTHA BLOCK 1/4239 under ballot number 4239, as evidenced by a Plot Ownership Certificate issued to Nancy Wakini Wachira and Teresia Wanja Nduati on 16/10/2006. They further depone that the 1 st Defendant confirmed their ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 5|Page

page 5 of 23

ownership through a Clearance Letter dated 27/05/2022 under serial number 1292, alongside a letter of the same date addressed to the Land Registrar at Ruiru, both of which verify their proprietary status regarding RUIRU/MUGUTHA BLOCK 1/4239. 11) The deponents explain that they proceeded to subdivide parcel RUIRU/MUGUTHA BLOCK 1/4239 into two resultant parcels, RUIRU/MUGUTHA BLOCK 1/11506 and RUIRU/MUGUTHA BLOCK 1/11507, a process supported by a copy of the mutation dated 23/08/ 2022. Upon subdivision, they were issued with title deeds for the resultant parcels, including a title for RUIRU/MUGUTHA BLOCK 1/11506 dated 24/08/2022 issued in the names of Nancy Wakini Wachira and Teresia Wambui Njenga. They confirm that they subsequently sold these suit lands RUIRU/MUGUTHA BLOCK 1/11506 and RUIRU/MUGUTHA BLOCK 1/11507 to the 2 nd Defendant on 30/09/2022 for the sum of Kenya Shillings Five Million Two Hundred Thousand (Kshs. 5,200,000/=), subsequently handing over vacant possession, turning over ownership documents, and facilitating the formal transfer to him on 7/02/2023. 12) In addition, they note that the Plaintiff was fully aware of this sale transaction. They state that the Plaintiff initially instituted the suit via a Plaint dated 2/07/ 2025 wherein they were named as parties, but the Plaintiff later filed an Amended Plaint dated 12/08/2025 to remove them as ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 6|Page

page 6 of 23

Defendants. Expressing their readiness and willingness to defend themselves and rebut the Plaintiff's claims if permitted by the Court, they maintain that it is in the interest of justice for them to be enjoined in the proceedings so that all questions in controversy can be fully adjudicated at once, thereby avoiding a multiplicity of suits. 13) The Application was canvassed by way of written submissions. In support of the Motion the Applicant filed submissions dated 18/09/2026. The Applicant submits that the proposed Defendants are necessary parties whose presence will enable the Court to effectually determine the issues before it, particularly by establishing the root of the title held by the 2nd Defendant, which is being challenged by the Plaintiff. The central issue for determination is whether the 5th, 6th and 7th proposed Defendants should be enjoined in the suit pursuant to Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. 14) In anchoring his legal argument, the Counsel for the Applicant relies heavily on several key judicial authorities. First, he cites the Court of Appeal decision in JMK v MWM & Another [2015] eKLR, which affirms that Order 1 Rule 10(2) contemplates an application for joinder while proceedings are still pending before the Court, noting that the power to add a party can be exercised at any stage prior to final disposal, including before trial, during trial, or even at the appellate stage. Second, the Applicant invokes the ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 7|Page

page 7 of 23

decision in Chisenga & 3 Others v Estate of Onesmus Nyamae Kyengo & 3 Others; Mwaganda & 3 Others (Applicants) (Environment & Land Case 94 of 2022) [2024] KEELC 3280 (KLR), which extensively considered the foundational principles governing the joinder of parties. Through this authority, the Applicant incorporates the principles highlighted by the Court of Appeal in EG v Attorney General; David Kuria Mbote & 10 Others (Interested Parties) [2021] eKLR, which discussed the application of the rule in conjunction with Hamisi Yawa & 3,000 others v Tsangwa Ngala Chome & 19 Others [2018] eKLR. These authorities establish that the core purpose of joinder is to bring on board a necessary party to determine the real issues in dispute based on the Court's judicial discretion, provided that the intended party has a clear, proximate, and non-peripheral personal interest or stake in the matter, their presence enables the Court to resolve all matters in dispute, non-joinder would cause them demonstrable prejudice, and their inclusion will not vex the parties or convolute the proceedings with unnecessary new matters not contemplated by the pleadings. 15) Applying these principles, the Applicant contends that he acquired the suit properties for valuable consideration from the 5th, 6th and 7th proposed Defendants, who have not opposed the application and are eager to assist the Court in determining ownership. Furthermore, the 1 st Defendant was ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 8|Page

page 8 of 23

sued as the original owner from which the Plaintiff derives shares, yet the Plaintiff paradoxically opposes the joinder of the subsequent owners who can shed light on the previous transactions, thereby approbating and reprobating. The Applicant argues that the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice, difficulty, or new cause of action that would arise from the joinder. Conversely, the 2 nd Defendant stands to suffer grave prejudice and the imminent risk of losing properties he has possessed since acquiring them if he is barred from enjoining all necessary parties to defend his root of title. 16) Finally, the Applicant submits that the joinder will not alter the existing causes of action or reliefs sought, but will instead assist the Honourable Court in effectually adjudicating upon and settling all questions in controversy in the interest of justice, and therefore prays that the application dated 02/06/2026 be allowed with costs to the 2nd Defendant and Applicant. 17) The Counsels for the Plaintiff/Respondent filed their submissions dated 24/07/2026 opposing the 2nd Defendant's Notice of Motion seeking the joinder of Teresia Wanja Nduati, Nancy Wakini Wachira, and Teresia Wambui Njenga as the 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants. The Plaintiff invokes the general rule of practice that the Plaintiff is dominus litis, meaning she is entitled to choose the Defendants against whom she wishes to pursue her claims and remedies, and cannot be ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 9|Page

page 9 of 23

compelled to proceed against persons she has no desire to sue. The submissions frame the core issues for determination as: i. Whether the proposed Defendants are necessary parties whose presence is required for the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, and ii. Whether the Court can determine the Plaintiff's entitlement to declarations, eviction, an injunction, and title-related reliefs against the current proprietor and the Land Registrar without the former proprietors being parties. 18) The Plaintiff details the legal framework governing joinder under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, emphasizing that the Court's discretion is judicial and must be exercised according to the circumstances of each case, guided by the established principles in the landmark case of Joseph Njau Kingori v Robert Maina Chege & 3 Others. Under these principles, the proposed party must be both a necessary and a proper party; in the case of a Defendant, there must be relief flowing from that Defendant to the Plaintiff; the ultimate decree must be incapable of effective enforcement without the proposed Defendant; and their presence must be strictly necessary for the Court to completely adjudicate upon the suit. ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 10 | P a g e

page 10 of 23

19) Addressing the merits, the Plaintiff contends that the most fundamental defect in the Applicant's case is that no substantive relief is sought against the proposed Defendants. The Plaintiff's case is directed exclusively at the person currently asserting ownership and possession alongside the relevant land registration authorities seeking an eviction, permanent injunction, cancellation of title, and declarations of ownership, none of which are directed at the proposed 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants. Furthermore, the Plaintiff notes that the Applicant's private transaction with his vendors does not create legal necessity for joinder. While the Applicant relies heavily on purchasing the properties from the proposed Defendants, that argument confuses a defense against the Plaintiff's claim with a potential collateral cause of action or indemnity claim against his vendors. If the Applicant believes his vendors breached contractual obligations, gave warranties, or misrepresented title, he remains fully at liberty to pursue separate proceedings, and the Court should guard against converting the present suit into a separate dispute between a purchaser and previous proprietors. 20) The Plaintiff also highlights the significance of her previous amendment to the pleadings. She acknowledges that while she initially sued the proposed Defendants, she deliberately filed an Amended Plaint withdrawing the claim against them, making the amended pleading the operative ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 11 | P a g e

page 11 of 23

foundation of the suit. The Applicant cannot use a collateral application for joinder to resurrect parties whom the Plaintiff has deliberately removed, as doing so would compel the Plaintiff to litigate against persons she seeks no relief from and fundamentally alter the character and scope of the case. Moreover, the Plaintiff submits that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate any actual legal prejudice beyond a generalized desire to have his vendors before the Court due to the history of his acquisition, which falls short of the legal test reiterated by the Environment and Land Court requiring a direct legal interest. 21) Concluding their submissions, the Plaintiff’s Counsels note that the application fails to satisfy any of the requirements for joinder, as there is no relief sought against the proposed Defendants, no risk that a decree cannot be enforced without them, and no genuine prejudice that cannot be addressed through the Applicant's own documentary evidence, such as sale agreements, transfer documents, title documents, and official searches. The Plaintiff stresses that the application is an unnecessary attempt to enlarge the litigation and transform a straightforward dispute over ownership and registration into a wider inquiry concerning private transactions, and therefore prays that the Notice of Motion be dismissed in its entirety with costs. Notably, the written submissions cite the leading judicial authorities of Joseph Njau Kingori v ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 12 | P a g e

page 12 of 23

Robert Maina Chege & 3 Others as well as relevant principles applied by the Environment and Land Court, while no formal annexures are referenced or attached within the body of these submissions. 22) The proposed 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants did not file any submissions. Analysis and Determination 23) I have considered the Motion, the Plaintiff's Replying Affidavit, the joint Replying Affidavit of the proposed Defendants, and the submissions. One issue arises: whether Teresia Wanja Nduati, Nancy Wakini Wachira and Teresia Wambui Njenga, from whom the 2nd Defendant traces his title, should be brought back into this suit as the 5 th, 6th and 7th Defendants, even though the Plaintiff chose to drop them by her Amended Plaint dated 12/08/2025. Within that issue are two narrower questions. The first is whether the Plaintiff's position as dominus litis bars the joinder. The second is whether the presence of the proposed Defendants is necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication of the questions raised in the pleadings. 24) The jurisdiction lies in Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules. It allows the Court, at any stage of the proceedings and with or without the application of either party, to add 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 ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 13 | P a g e

page 13 of 23

enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. The rule is written in the disjunctive. A person may be added either because he ought to have been sued, or because his presence is necessary for the questions in the suit to be completely settled. The second limb does not depend on the Plaintiff having a cause of action against him. 25) The Plaintiff is right to start from the dominus litis rule, but the Court of Appeal has marked its limits. In Civicon Limited v Kivuwatt Limited & 2 others, Civil Appeal No. 45 of 2014 [2015] KECA 588 (KLR) (Makhandia, Ouko and M'Inoti, JJ.A.), the Court said: "The doctrine of "dominus litis" does not however extend to the joinder (or impleading) of parties. This is because the Court has a duty and the power to add a person who is not a party to the action as originally constituted as a Defendant even against the will of the Plaintiff, whether on the application of the Defendant or of the nonparty in order for the real matter in dispute to be determined." In the same judgment the Court adopted the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Uganda in Departed Asians Property Custodian Board v Jaffer Brothers Ltd [1999] 1 EA 55: " 26) Alternatively, a person qualifies, on an application of a Defendant to be joined as a co-Defendant, where it is shown ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 14 | P a g e

page 14 of 23

that the Defendant cannot effectually set a defence he desires to set up unless that person is joined in it, or unless the order to be made is to bind that person. That is exactly the footing on which the 2nd Defendant has come to Court. The Plaintiff's freedom is a freedom to choose from whom she seeks relief. It is not a licence to decide whom the Court must hear before it pronounces on a title that passed through other hands. I should also say that Section 26 of the Limitation of Actions Act, cited on the face of the Motion, has nothing to do with joinder. 27) The question of necessity has to be answered by looking at what the Plaintiff actually asks the Court to do. She seeks a declaration of ownership of RUIRU/MUGUTHA BLOCK 1/11506 and 11507, cancellation of the titles, eviction, a permanent injunction and orders against the Land Registrar. Those two titles did not originate with the 2 nd Defendant. According to the uncontroverted joint affidavit, they came out of the subdivision of RUIRU/MUGUTHA BLOCK 1/4239. That parcel was allocated to the proposed Defendants by the 1st Defendant under ballot number 4239. It was confirmed by a Clearance Letter dated 27/05/2022, and then subdivided by a mutation dated 23/08/2022 before being sold and transferred to the 2 nd Defendant on 7/02/2023. The Plaintiff also derives her claim from the 1 st Defendant. The real contest is therefore between two ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 15 | P a g e

page 15 of 23

competing claims emanating from the same company. One of them runs through the proposed Defendants. 28) Section 26(1) of the Land Registration Act makes a certificate of title prima facie evidence of absolute and indefeasible ownership. The title may be challenged only on the ground of fraud or misrepresentation to which the proprietor is proved to be a party, or where it was acquired illegally, unprocedurally or through a corrupt scheme. Section 80(2) of the same Act protects from rectification a proprietor in possession who acquired the land for valuable consideration, unless he knew of, caused or substantially contributed to the fraud, mistake or omission complained of. Both provisions place at the centre of the trial the manner in which the title was first created and then passed on. 29) The Supreme Court in Dina Management Limited v County Government of Mombasa & 5 others, Petition 8 (E010) of 2021 [2023] KESC 30 (KLR), adopting the Court of Appeal in Munyu Maina v Hiram Gathiha Maina [2013] eKLR, stated at paragraph 93: "Where the registered proprietor's root title is under challenge, it is not enough to dangle the instrument of title as proof of ownership. It is the instrument that is in challenge and therefore the registered proprietor must go beyond the instrument and prove the legality of the title and show that the acquisition was legal, formal and ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 16 | P a g e

page 16 of 23

free from any encumbrance including interests which would not be noted in the register." 30) At paragraph 110 the Court added that "The title or lease is an end product of a process. If the process that was followed prior to issuance of the title did not comply with the law, then such a title cannot be held as indefeasible." 31) If the Plaintiff is to succeed in cancelling the 2 nd Defendant's titles, the Court will necessarily have to find that the allocation to the proposed Defendants, their clearance, their mutation or their transfer was irregular or unlawful. That finding would condemn them unheard. It would offend Article 50(1) of the Constitution and the rule the Court of Appeal restated in Civicon (supra), that "The rules of natural justice require that a person who is to be bound by a judgment in an action brought against another party and directly liable to the Plaintiff on the judgment should be entitled to be heard in the proceedings in which the judgment is sought to be obtained." 32) The danger of proceeding without such persons is shown by Dina Management (supra) itself. There, the Supreme Court noted at paragraph 74 that the findings in an earlier suit over the same land "were inconclusive due to the absence of the state organs, specifically, the ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 17 | P a g e

page 17 of 23

Registrar of Titles to enable the Court make a determination." 33) The Plaintiff's remaining objections do not, in my view, outweigh these considerations. Her first objection is that she seeks no relief against the proposed Defendants. That is answered by the second limb of Order 1 Rule 10(2) and the Jaffer Brothers principle adopted in Civicon (supra); a party may be joined not because there is a cause of action against him, but because his presence is necessary to settle the questions in the suit. Order 1 Rule 10(4) then provides that where a Defendant is added the plaint shall be amended "unless the Court otherwise directs". The Plaintiff therefore cannot be compelled to plead a claim she has abandoned. 34) Her second objection is that the proposed Defendants would be no more than witnesses. I accept that a person is not joined merely because he holds useful evidence. In Civicon the Court of Appeal, citing Mulla, drew the line "between the direct legal interest and the commercial interest." The interest here is direct and legal. These are the very persons whose allocation and conveyance will be declared valid or void. As vendors who took Kshs. 5,200,000/= and handed over title, they face an almost certain claim on their covenants if the 2nd Defendant loses. 35) The Plaintiff's suggestion that the 2 nd Defendant should pursue his vendors in separate proceedings would produce ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 18 | P a g e

page 18 of 23

the very multiplicity of suits the Rules are meant to prevent. That multiplicity is also why Order 1 Rule 15 allows a Defendant's claim for indemnity to be determined within the same suit. The Court of Appeal in Civicon put the objective of the joinder rules this way: "To bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter, so that the dispute may be determined in their presence protraction, at the time inconvenience without and to any avoid multiplicity of proceedings." The Court added that " all that a party needs to do is to demonstrate sufficient interest in the suit; and the interest need not be the kind that must succeed at the end of the trial." 36) The Plaintiff's fear of delay and expense is also overstated. The suit was filed in July 2025 and has only recently come to this Court on transfer. No hearing has begun. The proposed Defendants have already sworn affidavits and say they are ready to defend. Any additional expense can be addressed through costs. 37) I have also noted that the affidavits contain inconsistencies that the trial will need to resolve. The 2 nd Defendant dates his Sale Agreement for 03/09/2025, while his vendors put the sale at 30/09/2022. The joint affidavit introduces the name Everlyne Wanjira Njau, who is not ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 19 | P a g e

page 19 of 23

among the three persons named in the Motion. The vendors also assert that the Plaintiff knew of the sale, which bears directly on Section 80(2). These points sharpen, rather than weaken, the case for having all those persons before the Court. 38) Thus, I am satisfied that the proposed Defendants have a direct and proximate legal interest in the subject matter. Their allocation and transfer form the root of the title the Plaintiff seeks to cancel. Any decree cancelling that title would affect them, and the 2nd Defendant cannot effectually set up his defence of a lawful root of title and purchase for value without them. Neither the Plaintiff's status as dominus litis nor her earlier withdrawal of the claim against them overrides the Court's duty under Order 1 Rule 10(2) to have all necessary parties before it. The Application dated 02/06/2026 therefore succeeds. 39) Teresia Wanja Nduati, Nancy Wakini Wachira and Teresia Wambui Njenga are hereby joined as the 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants respectively. Their names are to appear exactly as they are entered in the green cards for the suit properties. The 2nd Defendant shall, within seven days, file and serve an affidavit clarifying the identity of Everlyne Wanjira Njau and her connection, if any, to the suit properties. 40) Pursuant to Order 1 Rule 10(4), I direct that the Plaintiff is not obliged to amend her plaint to seek relief against the joined Defendants. The Plaintiff’s opposition was also not ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 20 | P a g e

page 20 of 23

unreasonable, since she was asserting a recognised right to choose her adversaries. 41) Having carefully considered the application, the replying affidavits, the respective written submissions, and the governing legal framework, it is apparent that the 2 nd Defendant has established sufficient grounds under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, to warrant the joinder of the proposed Defendants to protect against the prospect of a judicial determination affecting their proprietary root behind their backs. The Applicant has successfully demonstrated that because the validity of the original creation and transfer of the suit properties is directly challenged in the plaint, the presence of the 5 th, 6th and 7th Defendants is strictly necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions touching on the root of title without risking conflicting findings Consequently, the or notice condemning of motion them unheard. application dated 02/06/2026 is hereby allowed on the following terms and orders: i) That the proposed 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants, Teresia Wanja Nduati, Nancy Wakini Wachira, and Teresia Wambui Njenga are hereby enjoined as the 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants respectively in this suit. ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 21 | P a g e

page 21 of 23

ii) That the 2nd Defendant/Applicant shall file and serve the joined Defendants with summons and all pleadings on record on the newly joined 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants within fourteen (14) days from the date of this Ruling. iii) That the newly enjoined 5th, 6th and 7th Defendants shall file and serve their Statements of Defense, witness statements and all accompanying documents within fourteen (14) days of service. iv) The Plaintiff is at liberty to file and serve a Further Amended Plaint within fourteen days of today if she so wishes. v) The 2nd Defendant has leave to amend his Defence within fourteen days thereafter. vi) That the costs of this application shall abide the outcome of the main suit. It is so ordered. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT THIKA THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS ON THIS 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2026. ............................. MOGENI J JUDGE In the presence of: Mr. Kivuti for the Plaintiff ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 22 | P a g e

page 22 of 23

Mr. Kariuki for the Defendants Mr. Melita - Court Assistant ............................. MOGENI J JUDGE ELCLC NO. E073 OF 2026 23 | P a g e

page 23 of 23