Karume & 2 others v Muchina (Land Case 122'B' of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2273 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to throw out a land ownership case, joining the Land Registrar and Attorney General so the real questions can be decided at trial.
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' suit discloses a reasonable cause of action
- 2.Whether the intended amendments and joinder of the Land Registrar, Ruiru and the Attorney General are necessary for the effectual adjudication of the matter
- 3.Whether the Plaint should be struck out as frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process
- 4.Whether non-compliance with Section 13A(1) of the Government Proceedings Act and the Public Authorities Limitation Act, Cap 39 should bar the joinder of state parties
- 5.Whether statutory procedural technicalities can be cured or waived in the interest of justice
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaint discloses a reasonable cause of action and should survive a striking-out application
The Plaint discloses a reasonable cause of action with substantial triable issues; the striking-out application was dismissed
The Plaintiffs deponed that they are beneficiaries of the Estate of the late Joseph Njenga Karume and produced a Green Card (Exhibit 'AKK-01') as prima facie evidence of the suit property's existence. Applying D.T. Dobie, striking out is draconian and reserved for the clearest of cases. The claims of ownership, a Sale Agreement with Makaoplus Properties Limited, and alleged trespass raise substantive controversies warranting trial on the merits; these are not sham pleadings.
Whether the Land Registrar, Ruiru and the Attorney General should be joined as defendants
Joinder granted; the Land Registrar's presence is indispensable to clarify the status of the allegedly non-existent title
Applying Niazons (K) Ltd v China Road & Bridge Corporation, joinder is proper where a party's presence is necessary for the court to effectually and completely adjudicate on all questions. The Land Registrar is indispensable to clarify the status of the title, and the Attorney General's presence serves the conclusive determination of the dispute over Title No. Ruiru East Block 1/103.
Whether the Defendant's reliance on the Government Proceedings Act and the Public Authorities Limitation Act should defeat the amendment and joinder
Procedural hurdles should not be used to bury the truth; the notice requirement was overridden in the interest of justice
The court balanced Section 13A(1) of the Government Proceedings Act and Cap 39 limitation strictures against the overriding objective of Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution. Relying on the Supreme Court's reminder in Samuel Kamau Macharia, the court held that while jurisdiction is everything, procedural hurdles should not be used to bury the truth, and directed service notwithstanding the technicalities.
Legal principles established
#- The power to strike out a pleading is a draconian measure to be exercised only in the clearest of cases where no triable issue exists
- The joinder of a party is proper where their presence is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit
- Where a scintilla of a cause of action exists, parties should be allowed their day in court notwithstanding procedural technicalities
Court orders
#- 1.The Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 15/05/2025 seeking to strike out the Plaint is dismissed in its entirety, as the suit discloses substantial triable issues warranting determination on the merits
- 2.The Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion dated 15/05/2025 is granted; leave accorded to the Plaintiffs to amend their Plaint dated 9/08/2023
- 3.The Land Registrar, Ruiru and the Attorney General are enjoined in the proceedings as the 2nd and 3rd Defendants respectively
- 4.The Amended Plaint is deemed duly filed and served upon the 1st Defendant, subject to payment of requisite court fees within seven (7) days of the Order
- 5.The Plaintiffs are directed to serve the Amended Plaint upon the 2nd and 3rd Defendants within fourteen (14) days, notwithstanding the technicalities of Section 13A(1) of the Government Proceedings Act
- 6.The Defendants are at liberty to file and serve their respective Amended Statements of Defence or Replying Affidavits within fourteen (14) days from the date of service of the Amended Plaint
- 7.Pre-trial Conference before the Deputy Registrar on 4/06/2026
- 8.The costs of both Applications shall be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction over the suit; applications brought under Sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, with Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution informing the court's approach
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.
That the Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 15/05/2025 seeking to strike out the Plaint be and is hereby dismissed in its entirety, as the suit discloses substantial triable issues that warrant a determination on the merits.
That the Land Registrar, Ruiru and The Attorney General be and are hereby enjoined in these proceedings as the 2nd and 3rd Defendants, respectively, to facilitate the effectual and complete adjudication of the dispute regarding Title No. Ruiru East Block 1/103.
That the Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion dated 15/05/2025 be and is hereby granted, and leave is hereby accorded to the Plaintiffs to amend their Plaint dated 9/08/2023.
The weight of the jurisprudence in our Courts starting from the Apex Court suggests that where a scintilla of a cause of action exists, the parties should be allowed to have their day in Court.
That the costs of both Applications shall be in the cause.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to a ruling in Musyoki & Another v Milemba & 2 Others [2026] KEELC 200 yet the judgment itself is dated 23rd April 2026 and submissions were filed 24/11/2025; the chronology of the cited 2026 authority is internally ambiguous
The written submissions by the Plaintiffs are described as dated 24/11/2025 and filed 'of even date' against the Defendant's application, though the parties were granted 45 days from 17/07/2025 to file; the dates as recorded appear inconsistent
The judgment is styled a 'Ruling' in the course of writing ('I have considered the two sets of the submissions filed while writing my Ruling') but is dated, signed and delivered as a judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Karume & 2 others v Muchina (Land Case 122'B' of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2273 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2273/eng@2026-04-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.