Marandu & 243 others v Paul & 7 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 1 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7720 (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 intended plaintiffs can be joined in this matter
- 2.whether the consent order issued by this court can be legally set aside
- 3.who should bear the costs of the application
Key legal issues
#Whether the intended plaintiffs could be joined as plaintiffs in the representative suit
Though joinder is possible even after judgment in exceptional cases, the applicants did not demonstrate entitlement to be joined as plaintiffs given the representative structure of the suit
The court applied the joinder test in Kingori v Chege (necessary and proper party; avoiding multiplicity) and the Court of Appeal authority permitting post-judgment joinder where a party was not heard. However, the applicants' interests were held to be sufficiently protected through the representative suit and the CBO, and their claim raised enforcement questions rather than a basis for joinder as plaintiffs.
Whether the consent order could be set aside for fraud, collusion or material non-disclosure
The grounds alleged engage the settled law on variation of consent judgments, but the court declined to set aside the consent, holding the applicants' complaint concerns implementation of the resulting title, which is a new cause of action
Applying Samuel Mbugua Ikumbu v Barclays Bank and Flora Wasike v Destimo Wamboko, the court accepted that a consent judgment can be vitiated for fraud, collusion, illegality, mistake or material non-disclosure. But on the record the land was registered in favour of four applicants and 240 others, and the applicants lacked the list and authority for the 500 occupants they claimed to represent.
Legal principles established
#- A consent judgment or order has contractual effect and can only be set aside on grounds which would justify setting a contract aside
- The court's power to add a party may be exercised at any stage, including after judgment in exceptional circumstances such as where adverse orders issue against a party not given notice or heard
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated April 7, 2025 is dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 45 Rule 1, Order 1 Rule 10(2) and Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 40, 47, 50(1) and 62(1) of the Constitution
Relief refused
#Joinder of the intended plaintiffs as plaintiffs and setting aside/offsetting the consent order dated May 31, 2021 and issued June 9, 2021
The applicants did not provide a list or authority to represent the over 500 people they claim to represent; the suit land is registered in favour of four original applicants and 240 others; any dispute concerns enforcement of the consent judgment, a new cause of action, not invalidation of the judgment
Costs
The application dated April 7, 2025, is hereby dismissed with costs (costs to the 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.
the application dated April 7, 2025, is hereby dismissed with costs.
If a dispute has arisen regarding its enforcement, the focus should perhaps be on how it is being enforced, rather than invalidating the entire judgment itself.
I see this as a new cause of action, as we now have a title that can be challenged regarding its implementation following the consent judgment.
It is now settled law that a consent judgement or order has contractual effect and can only be set aside on grounds which would justify setting a contract aside
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment describes the applicants as 'plaintiffs/applicants' and at other points as 'interested parties/applicants', and refers to the '2nd interested party/applicant', making the parties' precise designation unclear
The application is dated April 7, 2025, but the court's ruling dismissing the preliminary objection is dated October 6, 2025, while the court simultaneously states the vitiating grounds 'will be addressed substantively in their motion dated May 2, 2025', suggesting two separate motions whose relationship is unclear
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Marandu & 243 others v Paul & 7 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons 1 of 2021) [2025] KEELC 7720 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of motion dated April 7, 2025 (suit relating to Plot No. MN/III/885 CR. 21309). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7720/eng@2025-11-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.