Abura & another (Suing as the Administrators of the Estate of Isabella Akumu Abura (Deceased)) v Usonik Farm Purchase Co-operative Society Limited; Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited (Garnishee); Muge (Grievant); Commissioner for Co-operative Development (Proposed Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case 28 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 3113 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court refused to reopen a concluded land case, ruling that review and joinder are no substitute for an appeal.
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 Applicant and the Commissioner for Co-operative Development should be joined to the concluded suit as 'grievant' and interested party
- 2.Whether the garnishee proceedings and execution of the garnishee order nisi/absolute should be stayed
- 3.Whether the judgment and decree of 9th December 2024 should be reviewed and set aside for sufficient cause, error apparent on the face of the record, or discovery of new and important matter
Key legal issues
#Joinder of parties to a concluded suit
Joinder was refused; the court has inherent power to join interested parties but will not do so where the suit has been conclusively determined and the joinder serves no purpose
The court applied the Supreme Court's criteria in Communications Commission of Kenya and the Muruatetu elements: an identifiable, proximate personal stake, demonstrated prejudice from non-joinder, and relevance of intended submissions. The suit and the garnishee proceedings had been concluded and the judgment appealed. The Applicant, a non-party member of the Defendant, sought to add a proposed interested party that had neither requested nor authorised him. The proper remedy for grievances against the judgment was an appeal, already filed.
Whether review of the judgment was warranted
No; neither error apparent on the face of the record nor discovery of new and important matter was established
Under section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 rule 1, review lies only on the enumerated grounds. The alleged errors - treating the 1st June 2007 letter as an offer rather than acceptance, and treating the Plaintiffs rather than Kipsitoi Farm Limited as sellers - would at most be erroneous decisions correctable on appeal. The contention that members' deposits cannot be attached without the Commissioner's consent was a matter of law, not newly discovered evidence, and ownership of the attached funds was never in issue at trial.
Stay of concluded garnishee proceedings
Refused; there was nothing left to stay as the proceedings were concluded and the funds released
The stay sought was interim and, having never been granted, was spent. Substantively, the garnishee order nisi had been made absolute on 29th May 2025 and the attached monies released to the Plaintiffs in satisfaction of the judgment debt, so the relief was moot. Additionally, if the Applicant believed the funds were members' deposits, the proper course was an objection to attachment in the garnishee proceedings or an appeal from the Deputy Registrar's decision, not joinder to the concluded suit.
Legal principles established
#- Joinder of an interested party is discretionary and requires a demonstrable personal interest or stake in the matter, prejudice in case of non-joinder, and demonstration of the case the applicant intends to make
- A court may review its decision only on the grounds enumerated in Order 45 rule 1; an erroneous decision can only be corrected on appeal, not through review
- Review applications must be made without unreasonable delay, and 'sufficient cause' must be rational, plausible, logical, convincing, reasonable and truthful
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 16th April 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Plaintiffs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3A, 34 and 80 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap. 21); Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules; sections 36, 42 and 49 of the Co-operative Societies Act (Cap. 490); inherent power of the court to join interested parties
Relief refused
#Joinder of the Applicant as 'grievant' and the Commissioner for Co-operative Development as interested party
The suit has been heard and conclusively determined; joinder would serve no purpose; the term 'grievant' is alien to civil procedure; the Applicant was at liberty to pursue grievances in the Court of Appeal; no authority from the proposed interested party; no evidence the attached funds were members' deposits
Stay of garnishee proceedings and execution of the garnishee order
The interim orders sought were never granted and are spent; the garnishee proceedings are concluded, the order nisi made absolute and the funds released, so there is nothing left to stay
Review and setting aside of the judgment and decree of 9th December 2024
No error apparent on the face of the record; alleged misapprehension of the 1st June 2007 letter and of the seller, if true, is an erroneous decision correctable on appeal only; no discovery of new and important matter established
Costs
The application is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs
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 final analysis, I find no merit in the Notice of Motion application dated 16th April 2025. The application is dismissed with costs to Plaintifis.
I agree with the Plaintifis that the joinder of the Applicant and the proposed interested party to this suit will serve no purpose. This suit has been heard and conclusively determined.
I even doubt if our civil procedure recognises a party to a suit known as 'a grievant'.
A court can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 45 Rule 1 and not otherwise.
I find no error on the face of the judgment delivered herein on 9th December 2024.
The Applicant placed no evidence before the court showing that the money attached in the garnishee proceedings was members' deposits held by the Defendant rather than the Defendant's own funds.
Issues in the judgment
#The delivery date is printed as '21ST DAY OF MAY 2006', which is inconsistent with the record (judgment of 9th December 2024, application of 16th April 2025, submissions dated 15th October and 9th December 2025); the year is evidently a typographical error, likely for 2026
The case number of the suit and of the application are not stated anywhere in the extract
The court's own judgment extract states it was 'not able to see what further interest' the parties would have, but the text as printed reads 'I am able to see', suggesting a typographical omission of 'not'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Abura & another (Suing as the Administrators of the Estate of Isabella Akumu Abura (Deceased)) v Usonik Farm Purchase Co-operative Society Limited; Co-operative Bank of Kenya Limited (Garnishee); Muge (Grievant); Commissioner for Co-operative Development (Proposed Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case 28 of 2014) [2026] KEELC 3113 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the extract (suit formerly determined by judgment of 9th December 2024; application dated 16th April 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3113/eng@2026-05-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.