Sheobo v Harshiv Autospares Hardware & Suppliers Limited & 5 others (Environment and Land Case E192 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4205 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi land court removed a temple from a property dispute because the party who joined it never served the landowner with the application.
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 orders issued on 18th September 2025 joining the 3rd Interested Party as a party to the suit should be set aside
- 2.Whether the 3rd Interested Party has met the threshold to be joined in the proceedings as the 4th Defendant
Key legal issues
#Whether the ex parte joinder orders of 18th September 2025 should be set aside for non-service and breach of natural justice
The orders were set aside because the affidavit of service showed no service on the Plaintiff, who thereby demonstrated sufficient cause
The court reviewed the affidavit of service sworn by Echom Achiro on 16th September 2025. It reproduced paragraphs 2 and 3 verbatim, which listed service of the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants and the 1st and 2nd Interested Parties via counsel's email addresses, but contained no mention of the Plaintiff or his advocates. Applying the discretionary test in Shah v Mbogo and the 'sufficient cause' standard in Wachira Karani, the court held that a party not served was denied the opportunity to be heard and that the plaintiff had shown sufficient cause for vacation of the joinder orders.
Whether the 3rd Interested Party could be joined as 4th Defendant after the joinder orders were set aside
The application to be joined as 4th Defendant and to amend the plaint could not issue as the party was no longer in the proceedings
Once the court vacated the joinder orders, the 3rd Interested Party ceased to be a party, so consequential prayers to convert it into a defendant and amend the plaint fell away. The court therefore allowed the plaintiff's motion dated 22nd October 2025 and disallowed the 3rd Interested Party's motion dated 13th October 2025. The court did not separately rule on the substantive criteria for joinder as a defendant (e.g. Marigat Group Ranch) because its prior determination on non-service was dispositive.
Legal principles established
#- Setting aside an order of court is discretionary and the applicant must demonstrate sufficient cause; where an application was not served on a party, natural justice is breached and the resultant orders may be set aside
Court orders
#- 1.The orders issued on 18th September 2025 joining the 3rd Interested Party in the matter were vacated/set aside and the 3rd Interested Party was removed from the proceedings
- 2.The Notice of Motion dated 22nd October 2025 was allowed
- 3.The Notice of Motion dated 13th October 2025 was disallowed (dismissed), including prayers to join the 3rd Interested Party as 4th Defendant, to amend the plaint, and to file a defence and counterclaim
- 4.Costs in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Inherent jurisdiction to set aside orders; Civil Procedure Act (Section 1A) and Civil Procedure Rules (Order 10 Rule 1)
Relief refused
#Joinder of the 3rd Interested Party as 4th Defendant, leave to amend the amended plaint to that effect, and leave to file a statement of defence and counterclaim (Notice of Motion dated 13th October 2025)
Having set aside the orders joining the 3rd Interested Party, it was no longer a party to the proceedings
Costs
Costs in the cause.
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 Notice of Motion application dated 22nd October 2025 merited and will allow it. I however find the Notice of Motion application dated the 13th October 2025 unmerited and will disallow it.
I find that the Plaintifi, has demonstrated suficient cause why the 3rd Interested Party should not be a party to these proceedings and I will proceed to vacate/ set aside the Orders issued on the 18th September 2025 joining the said 3rd Interested Party in the matter, and proceed to remove it, from these proceedings.
From the averments in the said afidavit of service, which I have reproduced above, there is no indication that the Plaintifi was ever served with the impugned application.
This discretion is intended to be exercised to avoid injustice or hardship resulting from accident, inadvertence, or excusable mistake or error, but is not designed to assist a person who has deliberately sought, whether by evasion or otherwise, to obstruct or delay the course of justice.
Issues in the judgment
#Affidavit of service internally dates receipt of the application as 14th August 2024 although the application is dated 28th July 2025 and service is otherwise alleged to be 14th August 2025
Judgment is dated 8th July 2026 yet it refers to a replying affidavit dated 17th February, 2026 said to have been filed by the 1st Defendant, and the judgment date of 2026 post-dates joinder orders of September 2025; the year in the delivery date may be a typographical error
The court associated itself with the 'legal provisions cited' but the judgment text does not reproduce any specific statutory provisions beyond those raised in submissions
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sheobo v Harshiv Autospares Hardware & Suppliers Limited & 5 others (Environment and Land Case E192 of 2022) [2026] KEELC 4205 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment text provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4205/eng@2026-07-08
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.