Marituai Karingithe & 2 Others v Simon Ndungu Supeyo & Another; Priscilla Pereso Lembaka & 5 Others (Intended Interested Parties/Applicants)
The bottom line
#A Kajiado court ruled you cannot join a land case after judgment is final — once proceedings end, late applicants must find another legal route.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether an application for joinder of the Interested Parties is legally maintainable post-judgment, after the suit has been heard, determined, and the appellate process concluded
Key legal issues
#Whether joinder of interested parties is maintainable post-judgment
It is not; joinder under Order 1 Rule 10(2) presupposes live proceedings, and after judgment, decree and conclusion of the appellate process there are no pending proceedings before the trial court
The court construed 'at any stage of the proceedings' in Order 1 Rule 10(2) as presupposing ongoing or live proceedings. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Everton Coal Enterprises Limited v. Rose Wakanyi Karanja, it held that joinder is only available in pending proceedings. Since the primary suit was determined in 2019, review declined in 2020, and the appeal concluded in 2024, the court's mandate was exhausted and the proposed parties could not be joined to 'dead' proceedings. The dependent prayers to set aside judgment and rehear the suit automatically failed.
Legal principles established
#- Joinder of a party under Order 1 Rule 10(2) can only occur in pending, live proceedings; once judgment is pronounced and the decree issued, the trial court's proceedings have ended and post-judgment joinder is not maintainable
Court orders
#- 1.The Proposed Interested Parties' Notice of Motion application dated 19th February 2026 be and is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety
- 2.The costs of the application are awarded to the Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 19, 20, 22, 24, 25, 27, 28, 40, 47, 48, 50 & 159 of the Constitution of Kenya 2010; Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21; Order 1 Rule 10(2), Order 12 Rule 7, Order 22 Rule 22, Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010
Relief refused
#Setting aside of the judgment delivered on 9th December 2019 together with all consequential orders (including eviction and costs orders) ex debito justitiae
Dependent on joinder, which failed; joinder post-judgment is not maintainable as there are no pending proceedings
Joinder of the 1st to 6th Intended Interested Parties as Plaintiffs/Applicants in the suit
Order 1 Rule 10(2) joinder requires pending proceedings; the suit was concluded and the court's mandate exhausted
Hearing of the suit de novo and/or reinstatement for a fresh hearing on merit
Follows automatically from dismissal of the joinder and setting-aside prayers
Costs
The costs of the application are awarded 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.
A plain and contextual interpretation of the phrase "at any stage of the proceedings" presupposes that there are ongoing or live proceedings before the court.
Consequently, the proposed Interested Parties cannot be joined to proceedings that are legally ‘dead’ and concluded.
In the circumstances, the application to join the suit is bad in law, incompetent, and an abuse of the process of this court.
a) The Proposed Interested Parties' Notice of Motion application dated 19th February 2026 be and is hereby DISMISSED in its entirety. b) The costs of the application are awarded to the Respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#2nd Defendant's name appears as 'Joseph Crespers Supeyo Tumpes' in the replying affidavit narrative but as 'Joseph Crespers Supeyo' in the cause title
Application dated 19th February 2026 heard in a suit whose judgment was delivered in 2019, with ruling in 2026 - dates appear internally consistent but the delay is notable
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Marituai Karingithe & 2 Others v Simon Ndungu Supeyo & Another; Priscilla Pereso Lembaka & 5 Others (Intended Interested Parties/Applicants)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Case No. 372 of 2017 (Formerly Nairobi ELC No. 963 of 2006). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5869/eng@2026-09-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.