Timothy Irimu Kagambi & 21 others v Nancy Wanja Gatabaki & Nairobi City County (Intended Interested Party)
The bottom line
#Nairobi City County cannot join a concluded land case as an interested party; once judgment is delivered, it is too late to join.
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 can properly be joined as an Interested Party after judgment has been delivered.
- 2.Whether the Applicant has satisfied the threshold for review, vacation and/or setting aside of the judgment delivered on 14th October 2025.
- 3.Whether the Applicant has established sufficient grounds for stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 14th October 2025.
Key legal issues
#Post-judgment joinder of an interested party
Joinder after judgment is impermissible; the Applicant should pursue its claims in the pending related suits.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in Everton Coal Enterprises Limited v Karanja, which is binding, the Court held that joinder contemplates pending proceedings. Since the Applicant did not participate in the proceedings culminating in the impugned judgment and there are already pending proceedings over the disputed land, it came too late and should advance its arguments there.
Whether review and setting aside could be entertained independently of joinder
Having declined joinder, the Court declined to determine review and stay.
The Court distinguished post-judgment joinder from an application invoking review jurisdiction, but ultimately tied the Applicant's fate to the joinder question. Because joinder failed, the Court did not reach the merits of the review, setting aside or stay prayers.
Legal principles established
#- Joinder under Order 1 Rule 10(2) is only available in pending proceedings; once a suit is finally disposed of, the rule becomes inapplicable.
- An interested party is one with a stake in the proceedings who will be affected by the decision either way.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 11th November 2025 is disallowed (the Applicant is not joined as an Interested Party).
- 2.No order as to costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 45 Rule 1 (invoked by the Applicant); Article 159 and Article 62(2) of the Constitution (invoked by the Applicant)
Relief refused
#Joinder of Nairobi City County as an Interested Party
A party can only be joined to on-going proceedings; judgment had been delivered and the matter was closed.
Review, vacation and/or setting aside of the judgment delivered on 14th October 2025
The Court declined to consider review once joinder was refused.
Stay of execution of the judgment
Not considered following refusal of joinder.
Re-opening of the suit and fresh hearing on merit
Consequential to the refused review; the entire application was found unmerited.
Costs
No order as to costs.
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.
it is trite that a party can only be joined to on-going proceedings to enable the Court adjudicate fully upon and settle all the questions involved in proceedings before it, which is not the position herein.
since the proposed Interested Party did not participate in the proceedings culminating in the impugned judgement sought to be set aside, even if it has a stake in the matter, noting that there are already pending proceedings in respect to the disputed land, it has come too late in the day.
I find the instant Notice of Motion application unmerited and will disallow it but make no order as to costs.
Issues in the judgment
#Ruling dated 30th September 2026 postdates the motion it determines (11th November 2025) and the judgment sought to be set aside (14th October 2025).
Party roles inconsistently printed: several plaintiffs labelled 'APPLICANT/RESPONDENT' and the Defendant labelled 'DEFENDANT/23RD RESPONDENT'.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Timothy Irimu Kagambi & 21 others v Nancy Wanja Gatabaki & Nairobi City County (Intended Interested Party)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Suit No. E012 of 2022 (O.S.). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5971/eng@2026-09-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.