Mutai & another v Salim & 2 others; Mutai & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E020 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6327 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court allowed land buyers to join an ongoing suit as interested parties but refused their request for a temporary injunction against eviction.
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 applicants have established that they deserve the temporary injunction
- 2.Whether the applicants should be joined as interested parties
- 3.Whether the proceedings and all or resulting orders should be set aside
- 4.Costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Joinder of applicants as interested parties
Joinder allowed; their presence is necessary for complete adjudication and prevents proliferated litigation
Applicants purchased portions of the suit land from the registered proprietor and are in occupation. Respondents claim the land is ancestral and held in trust, disputing the sale. The Supreme Court's definition of an interested party as one with a stake in the proceedings applies. Joinder will settle all questions, protect rights otherwise adversely affected and avoid multiplicity of suits.
Temporary injunction
Refused; applicants did not establish the Giella thresholds for interim relief
The court recited the triple test in Giella v Cassman Brown and the Mrao definition of a prima facie case. Although applicants are in possession and the balance of convenience favours status quo, the court granted no injunction, effectively protecting possession through the suit and joinder instead.
Setting aside proceedings and resulting orders
Refused; no compelling reason once joinder is granted
Having joined the applicants and maintained the status quo, the proceedings can continue with all necessary parties. Setting aside would serve no purpose and the consent decree complaint is better addressed within the continuing suit.
Legal principles established
#- The court may at any stage order addition of a party whose presence is necessary to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions in the suit
- An applicant for injunction must surmount the Giella hurdles sequentially, logically and distinctly
Court orders
#- 1.The prayers for temporary injunction and setting aside of proceedings are disallowed
- 2.Prayer for joinder of the applicants to the instant suit as stated in paragraph 1 (d) is allowed accordingly
- 3.Costs be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Order 40 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining trespass, construction, ploughing or disposal of two acres of Nandi/ndalat Settlement Scheme/95
Applicants did not surmount the Giella triple hurdles; balance of convenience addressed via status quo within the main suit
Setting aside of proceedings and/or all resulting orders
Joinder plus maintenance of status quo resolves the concern; proceedings should continue with all necessary parties
Costs
Costs be in the cause.
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.
a. The prayers for temporary injunction and setting aside of proceedings are disallowed. b. Prayer for joinder of the applicants to the instant suit as stated in paragraph 1 (d) hereinabove is allowed accordingly. c. Costs be in the cause.
‘An interested party is one who has a stake in the proceedings, though he or she was not a party to the cause ab initio.....’
Plainly, the applicant has to surmount the three hurdles sequentially, logically and distinctly; see Kenya Commercial Finance Co. Ltd v Afraha Education Society (2001) Vol 1 EA 86.
Issues in the judgment
#First prayer marked 'Moot' in the notice of motion as reproduced, with no explanation
Potential internal inconsistency: paragraph 12 states balance of convenience favours status quo yet no interim status quo order appears in the final orders
Erroneous reference to the 2nd plaintiff as 'plaintifi/applicant' although she supports the joinder application
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mutai & another v Salim & 2 others; Mutai & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case E020 of 2023) [2025] KEELC 6327 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6327/eng@2025-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.