Northern Rangelands Trust v Osman & 164 (Suing on their own behalf and on behalf of Merti Sub County, Chari and Cherabi Wards Isiolo County) & another

declared, among other things that the establishment of conservancies in Chari Ward and Cherab, Merti Sub-County was undertaken without public participation and is unconstitutional; and that conservancies operated by the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th respondents in Chari and Cherab Wards, Merti SubCounty are operating illegally. 3. It is urged that the judgment poses a threat, not only to the two conservancies that were the subject of litigation before the ELC, but also to the entire conservancy network of 228 conservancies in the country, yet those conservancies did not participate in the proceedings before the ELC. It was urged that the presence of the applicant in this appeal is necessary to enable the Court eectively determine issues in the appeal; and that the joinder of the applicant will not be prejudicial to any of the parties. 4. It was submitted further that the judgment of the ELC established new thresholds for the registration and establishment of wildlife conservancies that directly impact all such entities in Kenya, even those that did not participate in the trial; that the applicant has a direct personal interest because the trial court’s ndings aect the legal status and operations of its entire membership; that unless the applicant is joined in the appeal, its members may be condemned unheard, potentially leading to the invalidation of conservancies that do not meet the trial court's specic criteria. 5. Moreover, counsel urged, members of the applicant have a right to ventilate their cases regarding how they were established before being bound by a judgment that could negatively aect their status; that once joined in the appeal, the applicant will demonstrate that the trial court erred in its interpretation of the Wildlife Conservation and Management Act, specically regarding the powers of the Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and community wildlife conservation committees. 6. In support of the application and the principles for joining interested parties, counsel cited decisions of the Supreme Court of Kenya in the case of Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance vs. Matemo & 5 Others (Petition 12 of 2013) [2014] KESC 32 (KLR) (27 February 2014) (Ruling) in which an interested party was dened as one with a recognizable stake who will be aected by the court's decision; and the case of Muruatetu & another v Republic; Kenya National Commission on Human Rights & 2 others (Interested Parties); Death Penalty Project (Intended Amicus Curiae) (Petition 15 & 16 of 2015 (Consolidated)) [2016] KESC 12 (KLR) for the threshold for joinder, which requires demonstrating a clear interest, potential prejudice if excluded, and the ability to provide relevant, nonrepetitive submissions. 7. The application was not opposed by learned counsels: Ms. Wambui for the appellant; Mr. Koome Muriithi for the County Government of Isiolo; Mr. Michael Chege holding brief for Mr. Mansur for the 3rd respondent; Ms. Ruth Kiunga holding brief for Mr. Eric Theuri, SC for the 4th, 5th, 6th, 10th and 11th respondents. 8. In opposition to the appeal, learned counsel Mr. H. Abdullahi holding brief for Mr. Makaka for the 1st respondent referred to the Grounds of Opposition and his written submissions which he orally highlighted. Counsel also referred to the Supreme Court decision in the case of Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance vs. Mumo Matemo & 5 Others (above) in urging that an applicant for joinder must demonstrate a direct and proximate legal interest, show prejudice if not joined, and oer specic submissions that will aid the court beyond what the existing parties provide. It was urged that the matter was fully litigated before the ELC; that the dispute attracted signicant public interest and if the applicant had been desirous of participating in the proceedings it would have done so before the trial court; that the present application is belated; that in seeking joinder at the appellate stage after failing to participate in the trial is an afterthought and an improper use of the legal process. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1774/eng@2026-09-25 2

page 2 of 4

9. It was submitted that the applicant does not have a direct interest and neither has it demonstrated any prejudice should its application be declined; that the trial court did not issue any orders or impose obligations on the applicant; that its interest, if any, is remote, generalized, and peripheral; that the applicant’s general concern for the broader sector of conservancies does not constitute the direct prejudice required for joinder. 10. It was submitted that the applicant has not demonstrated that its members’ interests would not be adequately represented by the existing parties or that their non-joinder would be prejudicial. In a nutshell, it was urged that the applicant does not meet the legal requirements for joinder and the application should be dismissed with costs. 11. We have considered the application and the submissions. Unlike the Supreme Court Rules which in Rule 25 expressly provides for application of admission of interested parties in court proceedings before that Court, there is no equivalent provision in the Court of Appeal Rules. However, under the interpretation provisions in Rule 2 of the Court of Appeal Rules, the expression “ interested party” is dened to mean: “…a person or entity that has an identiable stake, legal interest or duty in the proceedings before the Court but is not a party to the proceedings, or may not be directly involved in the litigation but has been allowed by the Court upon application, to appear as an interested party to address it in respect of a matter of law or fact.” 12. That denition resonates with the pronouncement by the Supreme Court of Kenya in the case of Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance vs. Matemo & 5 Others (above) to which counsel on the opposing sides referred as establishing the legal principles applicable in applications of this nature. The Supreme Court in that case expressed that an interested party “ has a ‘stakeinterest’ directly in the case “and that: “…an interested party is one who has a stake in the proceedings, though he or she was not party to the cause ab initio. He or she is one who will be aected by the decision of the Court when it is made, either way. Such a person feels that his or her interest will not be well articulated unless he himself or she herself appears in the proceedings, and champions his or her cause…” 13. With those principles in mind, the applicant has through the unchallenged supporting adavit sworn by Dickson Kaelo demonstrated that it is a registered society under the Societies Act; that under its Constitution, it has the mandate to support, coordinate and represent the conservancy network on matters aecting the establishment, governance and sustainability of conservancies in Kenya. The applicant argues that in the impugned judgment, the ELC erred in its interpretation of what constitutes a conservancy and the requirements for registration and operation; and that the judgment has also created legal uncertainty regarding conservancies generally and has also aected carbon credit projects which has in turn aected its members. 14. The applicant has demonstrated, to our satisfaction, that the judgment may have ramications for its members and that it has a demonstrable stake and meets the threshold for joinder as an interested party. Although counsel for the 1st respondent stated that the litigation before the ELC received wide public attention, counsel for the applicant on the other hand maintained that the applicant only became aware of the matter after the delivery of the judgment. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1774/eng@2026-09-25 3

page 3 of 4

15. All in all, the 1st respondent has not in our view shown what prejudice it will suer on account of joinder of the applicant in the appeal. On the contrary, the applicant has made out a case of likely prejudice if locked out. 16. In conclusion, prayer 2 of the application in which the applicant seeks leave to be joined in these proceedings as an interested party is hereby allowed. The applicant is at liberty to appear and make submissions during the hearing of the appeal. The appeal shall be mentioned before the Deputy Registrar for purposes of directions on ling and service of written submissions. 17. We make no orders as to costs of the application. Orders accordingly. DATED AND DELIVERED AT MERU THIS 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026. S. GATEMBU KAIRU, (P), FCIArb, CArb. …………………………………… JUDGE OF APPEAL H. I. ONG’UDI …………………………………… JUDGE OF APPEAL MUNYAO SILA …………………………………… JUDGE OF APPEAL I certify that this is a true copy of the original. Signed DEPUTY REGISTRAR. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keca/2026/1774/eng@2026-09-25 4

page 4 of 4