Linda Joyce Odhiambo v Samuel Baya Yaa & 3 others

since discovered that the suit property had been transferred to the proposed 2nd defendant with the assistance of the proposed 3rd and 4th defendants. One of the exhibits the plaintiff relied upon was an extract of title which showed that the suit property was transferred to the proposed 2nd defendant on 20.05.2025. 3. The defendant filed a replying affidavit sworn on 15.10.2025 in opposition of the application. The main point of opposition was that the plaintiff ought to have conducted a search on the title before filing suit in the first place since the transfer of the suit property took place shortly before the filing of suit. The rest of the contents of the replying affidavit were not relevant to the application for leave to amend the plaint to join the additional defendants. 4. When the application was listed for directions it was directed that the same shall be canvassed through written submissions. The parties were consequently granted timelines within which to file and exchange their respective submissions. The record shows that the plaintiff filed submissions dated 10.11.2025 whereas the defendant’s submissions were dated 06.02.2026. 5. The court has perused the plaintiff’s notice of motion dated 16.09.2025, the defendant’s replying affidavit in response thereto as well as the material on record. The court is of the MOMBASA ELCLC NO. E075 OF 2025 (RULING) Page 2

page 2 of 5

view that the main question for determination herein is whether the plaintiff has made out a case for the grant of leave to amend the plaint and join the additional defendants. 6. The policy of the law is that amendments sought before the hearing should be freely allowed if the same does not occasion injustice which cannot be compensated in costs. In the case of Central Kenya Ltd vs Trust Bank Limited & 4 others [2000] eKLR which was cited by the defendant it was held, inter alia, that the purpose of an amendment is essentially to allow the court to effectively determine the real questions in controversy. 7. The purpose of joinder of additional parties is well articulated by Order 10 rule 2 of the Rules. The main purpose of such a joinder is to facilitate an effectual and complete adjudication of a suit by ensuring that all necessary parties are before the court. The reason of having such necessary parties is so that they may be bound by the decree which may be ultimately passed. See Civicon Limited v Kivuwatt Limited [2015] 3124 (KLR). 8. The court is of the view that if the ownership of the suit property has since moved from the 1 st defendant to the proposed 2nd defendant, then the latter is a necessary party MOMBASA ELCLC NO. E075 OF 2025 (RULING) Page 3

page 3 of 5

within the meaning of order 10 rule 2 of the Rules. The proposed 3rd and 4th defendants who are alleged to have acted improperly in facilitating the said transfer would also be necessary parties in order to accord the plaintiff an opportunity to prove her allegations against them. 9. The upshot of the foregoing is that the court is satisfied that there is merit in the plaintiff’s application. The plaintiff has clearly demonstrated that she is entitled to the leave sought. As a consequence, the court makes the following orders for disposal of the notice of motion dated 19.09.2025. a) Leave is hereby granted to the plaintiff to amend her plaint and join Farmat Veges & Fruits, the Land Registrar Mombasa and the Hon. Attorney General as defendants to the suit. b) The plaintiff shall serve the amended plaint and summons to enter appearance within 14 days from the date hereof. c) Costs of the application shall be in the cause. It is so decided. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT THIKA THIS 8 TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2026 MOMBASA ELCLC NO. E075 OF 2025 (RULING) Page 4

page 4 of 5

Y. M. ANGIMA JUDGE In the presence of: Mr John Kebaso for the Plaintiff No appearance for the Defendant Court Assistant: Hinga MOMBASA ELCLC NO. E075 OF 2025 (RULING) Page 5

page 5 of 5