Mburugu & another v Abdullahi (Environment and Land Case E018 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6950 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court allowed a church to join a land ownership dispute and agreed the linked cases should be heard together, but will decide which court hears them later.
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 criteria for joinder to a suit has been met
- 2.Whether the application satisfies the criteria for transfer of a suit to one court for hearing alongside another suit on the ground that the suits involve the same subject matter, same parties and common issues
Key legal issues
#Joinder of an interested party / necessary party under Order 1 rule 10(2)
The criteria for joinder were met: the three suits concern the same land parcel, the same parties and a common issue of ownership, so the applicant was joined as 2nd defendant
The court applied Order 1 rule 10(2) and the Court of Appeal authorities. On the evidence, the subject matter in all three suits is land parcel 3099 in Mbwaa Adjudication Section; the applicant claims ownership alongside the plaintiffs and defendant in the main suit; the parties are the same across the suits, differing only in designation. The applicant was therefore joined as 2nd defendant with liberty to file pleadings.
Transfer and consolidation of suits with common subject matter under Section 18 Civil Procedure Act
Joint hearing of the three suits was merited, but whether they should be heard by the ELC or the nearest Magistrate Court was deferred for parties' submissions
Section 18 confers power to transfer suits at any stage, even suo moto, but the applicant must make a strong case considering balance of convenience, expense, interests of justice and hardship. Since the consolidated suit could potentially be heard by the nearest Magistrate Court, the court directed parties to file brief affidavits and make presentations on the appropriate forum before transfer is ordered.
Legal principles established
#- The court may at any stage of proceedings order joinder of a person whose presence is necessary to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon all questions in the suit
- The burden lies on an applicant for transfer of a suit to make out a strong case; mere balance of convenience is insufficient
Court orders
#- 1.The applicant (Word of Faith Church) is joined to Meru ELCL E018 of 2024 as a 2nd defendant
- 2.The applicant is at liberty to file their pleadings in the said suit
- 3.Parties to appear before the court on a day to be appointed to address the court on why the three suits should not be heard by the nearest Magistrate Court
- 4.Parties to file and share brief affidavits setting out the legal basis for hearing of the three suits by the Environment and Land Court as opposed to the nearest Magistrate Court
- 5.The plea for joint hearing of the three suits was found merited but the forum question deferred
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 1 rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules
- Consolidated with
- Meru CMC E & L Case No. E065 of 2024
Relief refused
#Immediate transfer of Tigania SPMC E & L Case No. E137 of 2023 and Meru CMC E & L Case No. E065 of 2024 to Meru Environment and Land Court
The court found joint hearing merited but deferred the decision on the forum, directing parties to address why the suits should not be heard by the nearest Magistrate Court
Costs
No costs order made in the ruling.
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.
In light of the foregoing, the applicant is hereby joined to Meru ELCL E018 of 2024 as a 2nd defendant. They will be at liberty to file their pleadings in the said suit.
Whereas the plea for joint hearing of the three suits is merited, the question as to whether the cases should be heard by the Environment and Land Court or by the nearest Magistrate Court will await presentations by the parties.
The burden lies on the applicant to make out a strong case for the transfer. A mere balance of convenience in favour of the proceedings in another court is not suficient ground though it is a relevant consideration.
Issues in the judgment
#Ruling describes three cases involving the same land and parties, but states the designation of parties differs across suits; the court also notes one transfer/consolidation was already effected in an earlier ruling, which the brief records separately
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mburugu & another v Abdullahi (Environment and Land Case E018 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 6950 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Meru ELC Land Case No. E018 of 2024 (Miscellaneous Application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6950/eng@2025-10-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.