Mwaura & another v P.N Thuku & Sons Limited; Director of Criminal Investigations & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 2124 of 2007) [2025] KEELC 7320 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Nairobi struck out a bid to lift a DCI land restriction, ruling the plaintiffs had to first apply to the Land Registrar.
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 Plaintiffs are entitled to the Orders as sought in the Notice of Motion dated 13th November 2024
Key legal issues
#Whether the DCI and Land Registrar Murang'a could be joined as interested parties post-judgment
They cannot be joined post-judgment as the proceedings stand finally disposed of
Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in K v MWM & Another, the court noted that Order 1 Rule 10(2) contemplates joinder only where proceedings are pending. Following the Tanga Gas Distributors line of authority, once a suit is finally disposed of and nothing remains to be done, the joinder power becomes inapplicable. The Plaintiffs joined the parties without leave of court and post-judgment.
Whether the DCI should be summoned for cross-examination on the restriction
The prayer was declined as it would amount to conducting a trial in a concluded matter
Cross-examination in execution is a discretionary order to be exercised judiciously. The court found that summoning the DCI for cross-examination would effectively reopen a trial in a concluded matter, and held that the court is functus officio having rendered its judgment.
Whether the court should order removal of the restriction on Title No. Loc 16/Gatura/2174
The prayer was declined; the Plaintiffs should have first applied to the Land Registrar for removal of the restriction
Sections 76 and 78 of the Land Registration Act empower the Registrar to make, vary or remove restrictions after inquiries and hearings. Section 78(2) allows a court, on application by an affected proprietor and notice to the Registrar, to order removal. The court held the Plaintiffs ought to have first applied to the Land Registrar Murang'a before coming to court.
Legal principles established
#- An application for joinder of parties can only be made in pending proceedings; once a suit is finally disposed of with nothing more to be done, Order 1 Rule 10(2) becomes inapplicable
- A party dissatisfied with a restriction on title must first apply to the Land Registrar for its removal under Sections 76 and 78 of the Land Registration Act before approaching the court
- A court that has rendered judgment is functus officio and cannot re-open matters by ordering post-judgment cross-examination
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 13th November 2024 is unmerited and is struck out
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction; execution proceedings under the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Summons to the Director of Criminal Investigations to be cross-examined on the restriction
Ordering cross-examination would amount to conducting a trial in a concluded matter; the court is functus officio
Order directing the Land Registrar Murang'a to lift/remove the restriction
A party dissatisfied with a restriction must first apply to the Land Registrar for its removal before coming to court
Joinder of the DCI and Land Registrar Murang'a post-judgment
Joinder post-judgment is impermissible where proceedings are finally disposed of
Costs
No costs order stated in the judgment
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 the circumstances, I find the instant Notice of Motion application unmerited and will strike it out.
I opine that the Orders sought for summoning the DCI for cross examination will amount to conducting a trial when the matter has been concluded and I find that this Court is functus oficio.
it is only when a suit or proceedings has been finally disposed of and there is nothing more to be done that the rule becomes inapplicable
I note the Plaintifis have joined the DCI and Land Registrar Muranga in these proceedings without leave of court and post judgment.
At this juncture, it is my considered view that the Plaintifis’ should have first made an application before the Land Registrar Muranga for removal of restriction before coming to Court.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers in paragraph 15 to 'K v. MWM & Another (2015) eKLR' while paragraph 9 lists 'JMK v MWM & Another [2015] eKLR' among the Defendant's authorities; the two appear to be the same authority cited inconsistently
Supporting affidavit deponent is referred to with both 'She' and 'He' in consecutive sentences
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Mwaura & another v P.N Thuku & Sons Limited; Director of Criminal Investigations & another (Interested Parties) (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit 2124 of 2007) [2025] KEELC 7320 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7320/eng@2025-10-28
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.