Nduulu & 4 others v Government of Makueni County & another; Munyoki (Chairperson), Hamisi (Treasurer), Kimweli (Secretary) Officials of Vinya wa Ziwani Self-Help Group (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Petition 14 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 4185 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the Interested Party is entitled to the orders of status quo ante and to injunctive orders against the Petitioners
Key legal issues
#Whether an interested party is entitled to status quo ante and injunctive orders
The application was dismissed; the Interested Party lacked locus standi to seek substantive orders
The court held that an interested party is not a primary party and its stake in the proceedings remains peripheral. Substantive orders such as status quo ante and injunction may only be granted to substantive parties on merited facts discernible from the pleadings. Relying on Muruatetu and Mumo Matemu, the court reasoned that the issues in a suit remain those presented by the principal parties, and an interested party cannot champion its own proprietary interest against the primary parties' rights without a substantive claim of its own.
Legal principles established
#- An interested party cannot seek substantive orders in a suit; such orders are confined to the primary/principal parties
- An order of status quo ante is substantive and requires merited facts ascertainable from pleadings
Court orders
#- 1.The Interested Party's Notice of Motion dated 6th June 2024 is dismissed with costs to the Petitioners/Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 159 of the Constitution; Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 1 Rules 1, 3 & 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Order of status quo ante to be maintained pending hearing and determination of the Petition
The Interested Party is not a primary party and has no substantive claim on which substantive orders can be maintained
Order barring the Petitioners from demolishing structures/houses on the suit property
An order of status quo ante is a substantive order confined to substantive parties upon merited facts; the Interested Party lacks locus standi
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the Petitioners/Respondents
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
An order of status quo ante is a substantive order just like an order of injunction which should only be confined to the substantive parties to a suit and upon merited facts that can be ascertained from pleadings.
The Interested Party’s stake in the proceedings has throughout remained peripheral and cannot override the stake of the primary parties.
The Interested Party does not have the requisite locus standi to bring the instant application. I find that the application is devoid of merit. The same is dismissed with costs to the Petitioners/Respondents.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nduulu & 4 others v Government of Makueni County & another; Munyoki (Chairperson), Hamisi (Treasurer), Kimweli (Secretary) Officials of Vinya wa Ziwani Self-Help Group (Interested Party) (Environment & Land Petition 14 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 4185 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Petition No. 14 of 2019. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4185/eng@2025-05-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.