Fatuma Mohamed Haji & 1 other v African Banking Corporation Limited & 6 others

sworn on 30th April, 2025, together with submissions. He avers that he was a director of the 2nd Defendant between 2011 and 2013, a period during which the impugned transactions central to this case allegedly occurred. 2. He states that the 1st Defendant is relying on several Letters of Offer that bear his purported signature and he is disputing the authenticity of these signatures and seeks the opportunity to challenge this evidence. He argues that without being joined to the proceedings, he would be denied a fair trial and the right to defend himself against evidence that directly implicates him. He contends that his evidence is significant for the just and effective resolution of the dispute and that his joinder would not prejudice any other party. 3. In his submissions, he relies on the Supreme Court cases of Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Matemo & 5 others [2014] KESC 32 (KLR) and Muruatetu & another v Republic; Kenya National Commission on Human Rights & 2 others (Interested Parties); Death Penalty Project (Intended Amicus Curiae) [2016] KESC 12 (KLR) to state that he has laid out sufficient reason to be joined in these proceedings as an Interested Party. 4. The application was not responded to and thus, I will proceed to make a determination that the same is unopposed. Analysis and determination 5. From the application and the submissions, the Applicant is asking the Court to enjoin him as an interested party in this suit. As he has submitted, the apex court, in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance(supra) and Muruatetu(supra) stated that an interested party "…has a stake in the proceedings, though he or she was not party to the cause ab initio" and "will be affected by the decision of the Court when it is made, either way". That a formal application must be filed, enjoinment is at the court's discretion, not a right, and sufficient grounds must be laid, the party's personal interest or stake must be clearly identifiable, proximate, and not merely peripheral, prejudice suffered due to non-joinder must be demonstrated to the court's satisfaction and clearly outlined and lastly, the party must present the case and/or submissions it intends to make, demonstrating their relevance and ensuring they are not merely a replication of other parties' submissions. 6. Having gone through the application and the submissions, I find that the Applicant is entitled to be enjoined in this suit for a number of reasons. First, it has not been denied that he was a director of the 2nd Defendant during the period of the impugned transactions and his disputed signature is on key loan facility documents being relied upon by the 1st Defendant Bank. This is not a peripheral or general interest as his legal and reputational interests are directly implicated by the evidence and the court's eventual finding on the authenticity of those documents. 7. Second, the Applicant explicitly states that without joinder, he would be denied the opportunity to challenge the purported signatures that directly impact him. This would indeed impair his right to a fair trial under Article 50 of the Constitution, as he would have no formal platform to defend himself against what he alleges are forgeries. Third, his intended case is clear: to dispute the authenticity of the signatures on the Letters of Offer. In my view, this is relevant and not a mere replication of another party's case, as neither the Plaintiffs nor the 1st Defendant have stated that they are likely to champion his personal defense against allegations of forgery. I find that his evidence on this specific point is unique and necessary for the Court to have a complete picture. Fourth, joinder is discretionary, but the court exercises this discretion to ensure justice and complete adjudication. I find that the Applicant’s participation helps the court in the efficacious and effectual determination of the dispute which aligns with the overriding objective of civil proceedings. He also correctly asserts that no prejudice would be https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/919/eng@2026-01-29 2

page 2 of 3

caused to other parties by his joinder and non has been stated and the fact that there was no response or objection from any other party strongly supports the inference that his joinder is unobjectionable and that the grounds are perceived as reasonable. 8. In the foregoing, I find the Applicant has successfully met the threshold set by the apex court in Trusted Society(supra) and Muruatetu(supra) as he has a direct, personal and legally significant stake in the outcome, he has clearly demonstrated the specific prejudice he would suffer, he has identified the unique and relevant evidence he intends to adduce and that granting joinder serves the interests of justice and aids the court without prejudicing other parties. I will therefore exercise discretion in his favor and enjoin him in these proceedings as an interested party Conclusion and Disposition 9. In the foregoing, the application dated 30th April, 2025, is allowed and the Applicant, Hussein Mohamed Yusuf, is hereby joined to this suit as an Interested Party. There is no order as to costs. DATED AND DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 29TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 ALEEM VISRAM, FCIArb JUDGE In the presence of; Court Assistant: Lispa ……………………………………….………………………………...............1st Plaintiff ……………………..……………………………………………………..…….2nd Plaintiff ………………………………………………………………….………......…1st Defendant ……………………………………………………………………………….2nd Defendant …………………………………………………...…………………...…..3rd Defendant ……………………………………….……………….…………………..4th Defendant ………………………………...…………………….……………………5th Defendant …………………………………………………………..…………..…….6th Defendant ……………………………....………………………………….…………7th Defendant ………………………………………………………………Intended Interested Party https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/919/eng@2026-01-29 3

page 3 of 3