Muiruri (Suing as Administratrix of the Estate of the Late Patrick Paul Muiruri) v Khamis & 3 others

Honourable Court. The Plainti asserts that the Intended Interested Party is a stranger to the dispute, lacks locus standi, and seeks to reopen a boundary determination that has already been conclusively settled under the Land Registration Act. 3. In addition, the Court is seized of the Supporting Adavit sworn on 15th December, 2025 by Mike Nyaga Njeru, annexing a copy of the title deed to parcel known as LR. No. Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1170 and the Survey Report dated 19th June, 2025, wherein the Applicant contends that the recommendations therein materially aect his parcel due to interlocking boundaries, thereby implicating his constitutional right to property under Article 40. 4. Upon service of the Intended Interested Party’s application, the Plainti opposed the same through the said Replying Adavit and submissions, while the Intended Interested Party relied on his Supporting Adavit and submissions led on record, asserting that his participation is necessary to protect his proprietary interests and to assist the Court in eectually adjudicating upon all issues concerning the aected parcels. 5. This ruling therefore addresses the merits of the Intended Interested Party’s motion for joinder, the Replying Adavit led by the Plainti, and the rival submissions of both parties, guided by the applicable statutory provisions and judicial precedents. II. The Intended Interested Party’s Case 6. 7. The Intended Interested Party’s sought the following orders: a. The applicant herein MIKE NYAGA NJERU be granted leave to join this suit as an interested party. b. Upon such joinder, the Interested Party be granted leave to le any necessary documents, responses or adavits in this matter. c. Costs of this application be in the course. The application by the Applicants was premised on the grounds, facts and testimony on the face of the application and further supported by the 11 paragraphed annexed adavit of Mike Nyaga Njeru, the Intended Interested Party herein. The Aant averred as follows that:i. He was the legal and registered owner of land parcel Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1170. Annexed in the adavit and marked as “MNN – 1” was a copy of the title deed. ii. He had perused and reviewed the Survey Report and the Boundary Determination Report dated 19th June, 2025, emanating from the County Land Registrar, Kwale, titled “Boundary Dispute between Galu Kinondo/568, 1855 and 1854”, which was already led in the suit. Annexed in the adavit and marked as “MNN – 2” was a copy of the survey report. iii. Although the report expressly dealt with parcels 568, 1854 and 1855, the determinations, realignments, and survey recommendations therein materially aected the spatial conguration of the neighbouring parcels including his parcel 1170, due to the interlocking nature of boundaries in the Galu/ Kinondo area. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5524/eng@2026-09-21 2

page 2 of 16

iv. The implementation of the said survey recommendations might directly impact the extent, boundary position, acreage, or peaceful occupation of his property, hence aecting his constitutional right to property under Article 40 of the Constitution. v. He was not notied, invited, or involved in the boundary proceedings, yet the recommendations had implications on his parcel and on neighbouring cadastral boundaries that linked with parcel 1170. vi. His participation in the suit was necessary to protect his proprietary interests and to assist the Court in fully understanding the boundary context, survey history, and the implications of the report, in line with the principles of natural justice and fair administrative action under the provision of Article 47 of the Constitution. vii. Unless he was joined as an Interested Party, the Court’s decision might have been rendered without the input of a directly aected proprietor, thereby prejudicing his rights. viii. It was in the interests of justice that the Honourable Court allowed the application. ix. There would have been no prejudice caused to any party if he were joined as a party therein. x. All that was deponed to therein was true to the best of his knowledge and belief, save for matters of information, the sources whereof had been disclosed. III. The Replying Adavit 8. The Respondent raised a 13 paragraphed Replying Adavit sworn on on 4th February, 2026 sworn by Jane Wamuchi Muiruri, the Plainti/Respondent herein who opposed the Application and stated as follows:a. The Intended Interested Party’s application dated 15th December, 2025 together with the adavit in support thereof had been read over and explained to the Aant, and she had independently read, analysed and considered the same and he verily deposed that it was vexatious, legally untenable, procedurally incompetent and constituted a gross and fragrant abuse of the due process of this Honourable Court. b. The substratum of the suit was narrow, specic, and incontrovertibly conned to a boundary dispute between herself and the Defendant, arising solely from the Defendant’s unlawful, wilful, and unjustied trespass and encroachment onto her parcel of land. c. Pursuant to clear and unequivocal directions of the Honourable Court, a statutory boundary determination exercise had been conducted by the Land Registrar after due notice to, and with the express invitation of, all adjoining landowners and neighbours, and in the presence and with the full participation of the disputing parties therein, culminating in a Land https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5524/eng@2026-09-21 3

page 3 of 16

Registrar’s Report reached by consent and without protest, objection, or reservation from any quarter. d. The said Land Registrar’s Report had been lawfully prepared, formally lodged, and duly led before the Honourable Court, where it formed part of the permanent judicial record and carried full legal force and eect. e. The boundary, having been conclusively determined, xed, and authenticated by the Land Registrar in strict compliance with the provision of Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act, stood nally settled, extinguished, and spent, and could only have been impeached through the narrow and specic avenues expressly provided by statute, and certainly not through collateral, opportunistic, and legally impermissible proceedings such as the present application. f. The Intended Interested Party was a complete stranger to the dispute forming the subject matter of the suit, was never a disputant in the boundary determination process, asserted no claim at the material time, and belatedly sought to intrude into concluded proceedings without locus standi, factual basis, or legal footing. g. The Intended Interested Party demonstrably lacked any direct, proximate, identiable, or legally cognizable interest in the subject matter of the suit and fell spectacularly short of the settled legal threshold for joinder as an interested party. h. The Honourable Court would have suered no prejudice whatsoever by excluding the Intended Interested Party from the proceedings, whereas granting the application would only have served to derail, delay, and contaminate a matter that had already undergone and conclusively exhausted the requisite statutory process. i. The application for joinder was a transparent afterthought, a desperate stratagem, and a thinly veiled attempt to unlawfully resurrect, re‑litigate, and sabotage a concluded statutory determination through the back door, in a manner wholly unknown to law and inimical to the principles of nality and judicial economy. j. Permitting such an application would have set a dangerous precedent, rewarded indolence and mischief, and amounted to an open endorsement of abuse of the court process. k. It was therefore just, proper, and imperative that the Intended Interested Party’s application for joinder be dismissed in its entirety with punitive costs to her. l. All that was deponed to therein was true to the best of her knowledge, information, and belief. IV. Submissions 9. While all the parties were present in Court, they were directed to have the Notice of Motion application dated 15th December, 2025, and the Replying Adavit sworn on 4th February, 2026, be disposed of https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5524/eng@2026-09-21 4

page 4 of 16

by way of written submissions. All the parties duly complied with the Court’s directions. Pursuant thereto, the parties obliged, and a ruling date was accordingly reserved for the 21st September, 2026 by the Honourable Court. A. The Written Submissions by the Intended Interested Party 10. The Intended Interested Party through the Law rm of Messrs. Munga Kibanga & Co. Advocates led their written submissions dated 9th February, 2026. The Learned Counsel submitted that the intended interested party/applicant is the registered proprietor of land parcel Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1170, which parcel is neighbouring and directly aected by the boundary determination and survey recommendations arising from the dispute subject of this suit. Upon learning that the said survey recommendations extend to and aect his parcel, the applicant led the present application seeking joinder to these proceedings as an interested party.The application is opposed through the Plainti's replying adavit dated 4th February, 2026, wherein the Plainti opposes the joinder in its entirety and prayed for the dismissal of the application. 11. The Learned Counsel relied on the sole issue for determination being whether the intended interested party had demonstrated a sucient, direct, and identiable stake in the proceedings to warrant joinder. The Plainti instituted this suit as the proprietor of land parcel Kwale/Galu Kinondo/568, alleging trespass by the 1st Defendant, the proprietor of land parcels Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1854 and 1855.The plainti further sued the 2nd defendant for allegedly failing to issue a report on the said boundary dispute, despite having conducted hearings on the matter. The 2nd Defendant has since led a survey report dated 18th June, 2025, whose ndings and recommendations the Plainti expressly accepts and endorses in her replying adavit (at paragraph 5). 12. Notably, the said survey report recommends boundary realignments and conrmations not only in respect of parcels Kwale/Galu Kinondo/568, 1854 and 1855, but also in respect of other neighbouring parcels, including Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1170, which is owned by the intended interested party. In view of the foregoing, this Honourable Court cannot properly consider, adopt, or give eect to the recommendations of the said survey report without the participation of all proprietors whose parcels stand to be aected, including the intended interested party.Proceeding otherwise would expose the Court's eventual determination to challenge and inevitably result in a multiplicity of suits by aected proprietors, contrary to the principle of ecient and economical use of the scarce judicial resources. 13. The provision of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 provides that: “ The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any person who ought to have been joined... or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court eectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added.” 14. The Learned Counsel submitted that this Court could not eectually and completely determine the issues in dispute without the participation of the intended interested party, whose proprietary rights stand to be materially aected by the boundary adjustments recommended by the 2nd Defendant. The Plainti could not approbate and reprobate: having expressly embraced the survey report and its recommendations, she cannot, in the same breath, oppose the participation of a proprietor whose land is directly aected by those very recommendations. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5524/eng@2026-09-21 5

page 5 of 16

15. The Supreme Court in the case of:- “Communications Commission of Kenya and 4 Others – Versus - Royal Media Services Limited & 7 Others Petition No. 15 OF (2014) eKLR” pronounced itself on who an Interested Party is and held as follows:“ In determining whether the applicant should be admitted into these proceedings as an interested party, we are guided by this Court's decision in the Mumo Matemo case where the court (at paragraphs 14 and 18) held: “ 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.” 16. According to the Learned Counsel it was not disputed that the Applicant was the registered owner of Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1170, a parcel situated within the same survey block and boundary matrix as parcels 568, 1854 and 1855, which are the subject of the impugned survey report.The survey report expressly recommends boundary realignments and conrmations which could not lawfully or procedurally be undertaken in the absence of the Applicant, who had demonstrated a direct, proximate, and identiable interest, as opposed to a remote or speculative one.It was therefore in the interest of justice that the Applicant be joined to these proceedings in order to facilitate a holistic, fair, and conclusive determination of the boundary dispute and to forestall multiplicity of suits. 17. The Learned Counsel concluded that the Applicant had satised all the legal and jurisprudential thresholds for joinder as an interested party.His joinder will occasion no prejudice to any party but will greatly assist the Court in rendering a complete, fair, and enforceable determination of the issues in dispute.For the foregoing reasons, the intended interested party respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to allow the application dated 15th December, 2025 as prayed. B. The Written Submissions by the Plainti 18. The Plainti through the Law rm of Messrs. Stephen Njumbale & Company Advocates led their written submissions dated 9th March, 2026. Mr. Njumbale Advocate submitted that the submissions were led on behalf of the Plainti in rm opposition to the Intended Interested Party's Application dated 15th December, 2025, seeking leave to be joined in these proceedings as an Interested Party. The said application was misconceived, legally untenable, procedurally incompetent and an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court. The application represents a transparent attempt by a complete stranger to the dispute to intrude into proceedings whose subject matter neither concerns him nor threatens any legally recognizable interest of his. The Intended Interested Party seeks to insinuate himself into a dispute that was and remained, exclusively between the Plainti and the 1st Defendant notwithstanding the fact that the dispute giving rise to the suit has already undergone the statutory dispute resolution mechanism prescribed by law. 19. On the legal threshold for joinder of interested party. The Learned Counsel submitted that the principles governing joinder of interested parties were now rmly settled in Kenyan jurisprudence.A party seeking to be enjoined in proceedings must demonstrate a clearly identiable, proximate and legally recognizable stake in the proceedings, and must further show that such interest would be prejudicially aected by the outcome of the case if the party is not joined. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5524/eng@2026-09-21 6

page 6 of 16

20. To buttress on this legal position, he cited the case of:- “Olang – Versus - Nuaga & Others (Environment and Land Case 52 of 2019)[2026]KEELC 1202 (KLR)” the court reiterated the principles governing joinder of an interested party and cited with approval the decision of the Supreme Court in “Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another – Versus - Republic & 5 Others [2016] eKLR”, where the Court stated: “ From the foregoing legal provisions and case law, the following elements emerge as applicable where a party seeks to be joined in proceedings as an interested party: (a) The personal interest or stake that the party has in the matter must be set out in the application. The interest must be clearly identiable and proximate enough, and not merely peripheral. (b) The prejudice to be suered by the intended interested party in case of non - joinder must also be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court. The prejudice must be real and not remote. (c) A party must set out the case or submissions it intends to make before the Court and demonstrate the relevance of those submissions. It must further be shown that such submissions will not merely replicate those of the existing parties.” 21. Therefore, according to the Learned Counsel, Joinder was not a procedural indulgence available to every curious bystander. It was a strictly regulated legal mechanism reserved only for those whose rights stood to be directly aected by the outcome of the proceedings.The Intended Interested Party in the present case fell spectacularly short of this threshold.The substratum of the present suit was a boundary dispute between the Plainti and the 1st Defendant arising from the latter’s unlawful encroachment onto the Plainti's parcel of land.At no time whatsoever had the Intended Interested Party had any boundary dispute with the Plainti.Pursuant to the directions of this Honourable Court, the District Land Registrar, Kwale County, conducted a statutory boundary determination exercise in accordance with the provision of Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act. 22. The exercise was conducted after notice was issued to the relevant parties and neighbouring landowners, and culminated in a formal determination of the boundary between the Plainti and the 1st Defendant.Upon completion of the exercise, the Land Registrar prepared a report which was duly led before this Honourable Court and now forms part of the court record.By virtue of that determination, the boundary between the Plainti and the 1st Defendant was lawfully, conclusively and authoritatively xed.The Intended Interested Party was never a disputant in that process, nor did he assert any competing claim at the material time. 23. The Learned Counsel further submitted that once the Land Registrar’ undertook a boundary determination under the Land Registration Act, the determination may only be challenged through the statutory procedures provided by law.The law never permit parties to circumvent or re - open such determinations through collateral proceedings. This position was rmly articulated by the Court of Appeal in “Speaker of the National Assembly – Versus - Karume [1992] KLR”, where the Court held: “ Where there is a clear procedure for the redress of any particular grievance prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure should be strictly followed.” https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5524/eng@2026-09-21 7

page 7 of 16

24. Similarly, the Court of Appeal in “Georey Muthinja & Another – Versus - Samuel Muguna Henry & 1756 Others [2015] eKLR” emphasized the doctrine of exhaustion in the following terms: “ It is imperative that where a dispute resolution mechanism exists outside courts, the same be exhausted before the jurisdiction of the courts is invoked. Courts ought to be the fora of last resort and not the rst port of call.” 25. According to the Learned Counsel, Courts must therefore respect and uphold the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies.In the present matter, the statutory process was not merely invoked - it was fully undertaken and completed.The Land Registrar conducted the exercise, made the determination and led the report before this Honourable Court.The statutory mandate entrusted to the Land Registrar by Parliament was therefore fully discharged. 26. The Learned Counsel submitted that it was particularly signicant that the 1st Defendant, who was the actual disputant in the boundary dispute, participated in the boundary determination exercise and accepted the outcome thereof.The party directly aected by the determination had not challenged the same through any legally prescribed avenue.It would therefore be legally incongruous and impermissible for the Intended Interested Party, who was never a disputant in the process, to seek to indirectly challenge or reopen that determination.The Intended Interested Party could not cry louder than the bereaved.To permit such conduct would be to sanction a procedural ambush upon a statutory determination that has already attained nality. 27. On the only issue remaining before Court were on eviction and costs. The Learned Counsel submitted that following the Land Registrar’s determination, the boundary dispute that formed the foundation of this suit has already been fully resolved.The proceedings had therefore progressed beyond the stage of boundary adjudication.The only matters now remaining for determination by this Honourable Court were consequential reliefs, namely:. 28. a. Eviction of the 1st Defendant from the Plainti's land; and b. Costs of the suit. These issues related exclusively to the conduct and occupation of the 1st Defendant. They did not in any manner implicate or concern the Intended Interested Party. The Intended Interested Party had not demonstrated that: a. any portion of his land formed part of the dispute; b. his proprietary rights were threatened; or c. the orders sought in the Plaint would aect him in any conceivable manner 29. According to the Learned Counsel it therefore followed that no nal orders arising from this suit would interfere with the Intended Interested Party's land or rights. 30. On the Application was a transparent attempt to hijack the Plainti’s case. The Learned Counsel submitted that the Intended Interested Party’s application was nothing more than a belated and opportunistic stratagem aimed at intruding upon proceedings that have already progressed through the statutory dispute resolution framework.The application was an unmistakable attempt to hijack the Plainti's case and transform a narrow and straightforward dispute into an unnecessary and unwarranted controversy.Courts must remain vigilant against such attempts, particularly where https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5524/eng@2026-09-21 8

page 8 of 16

joinder would only serve to delay proceedings, introduce’ collateral issues, and undermine the nality of statutory determinations. 31. In conclusion, the Learned Counsel submitted that the Intended Interested Party had failed comprehensively and irredeemably - to demonstrate any direct, proximate or legally recognizable interest in the subject matter of this suit.The boundary dispute between the Plainti and the 1st Defendant had already been lawfully determined by the Land Registrar in accordance with the Land Registration Act, and the report thereof has been duly led before this Honourable Court.The statutory process had therefore been fully exhausted, and the party directly aected by the determination has accepted the outcome.The only issues now remaining before the Court concern eviction of the 1st Defendant and costs, matters that do not implicate the Intended Interested Party in any manner.The application for joinder was therefore misconceived, unnecessary and a clear abuse of the process of this Honourable Court. 32. Hence, the Learned Counsel respectfully urged this Honourable Court to dismiss the Intended Interested Party's Application dated 15th December, 2025 with costs. V. Analysis and Determination 33. The Honourable Court carefully read and considered the Notice of Motion application dated 15th December, 2025 led by the Intended Interested Party, Mike Nyaga Njeru, the Replying Adavit sworn on 4th February, 2026 led by the Plainti, Jane Wamuchii Muiruri, and the Written Submissions dated 9th March, 2026 led on behalf of the Plainti. The Court also considered the Supporting Adavit sworn by Mike Nyaga Njeru, together with the annexures thereto, the objections raised by the Plainti, and the relevant statutory provisions and authorities cited the provision of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Statures. 34. In order to arrive at an informed decision, Equitable and reasonable decision, the Honourable Court framed the following four ( 4 ) issues for its determination:a. Whether the Applicant has demonstrated a sucient, direct, and identiable stake in the proceedings to warrant joinder as an Interested Party; b. Whether the joinder of the Applicant is necessary to enable the Court to eectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit; and c. Whether the Application is an abuse of the process of the Court, having regard to the alleged nality of the statutory boundary determination. d. Who ought to bear the costs of the application ISSUE No. a). Whether the Applicant has Demonstrated a Sucient, Direct, and Identiable Stake in the Proceedings to Warrant Joinder as an Interested Party; 35. Under this Sub – heading, the Honorable Court will be critically assessing the legal concept of joinder of parties. The power of the Court to order joinder of a party is founded upon the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, which provides as follows:“ The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plainti or defendant, be struck out, and that https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5524/eng@2026-09-21 9

page 9 of 16

the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plainti or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court eectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added.” 36. The provision is a broad and enabling one. It confers upon the Court a discretionary power, exercisable at any stage of the proceedings, to add a person whose presence before the Court is necessary to enable the Court to ‘eectually and completely’ adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. The discretion, however, is not to be exercised capriciously, but judicially and in accordance with settled principles. 37. The governing principles on joinder of an Interested Party have been deliberated on extensively by High Courts. They were authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court of “Kenya in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance – Versus - Mumo Matemo & 5 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 12 of 2013; [2014] eKLR”, where the Court dened an interested party in the following terms: “ 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.” 38. The Supreme Court subsequently elaborated the applicable principles in “Francis Kariuki Muruatetu & Another – Versus - Republic & 5 Others ( Supra)”, where the Court held as follows:“ From the foregoing legal provisions, and from the case law, the following elements emerge as applicable where a party seeks to be enjoined in proceedings as an interested party: (a) 39. One must move the Court by way of a formal application. Enjoinment is not as of right, but is at the discretion of the Court; hence, sucient grounds must be laid before the Court, on the basis of the following elements: (i) The personal interest or stake that the party has in the matter must be set out in the application. The interest must be clearly identiable and must be proximate enough, to stand apart from anything that is merely peripheral. (ii) The prejudice to be suered by the intended interested party in case of non-joinder, must also be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court. It must also be clearly outlined and not something remote. (iii) A party must set out the case and/or submissions it intends to make before the Court, and demonstrate the relevance of those submissions. It must also be demonstrated that such submissions are not merely a replication of what the other parties will be making before the Court.” These principles were applied and armed by the Environment and Land Court in the case of:“Olang – Versus - Nuaga & Others, Environment and Land Case No. 52 of 2019; [2026] KEELC 1202 (KLR)”, which reiterated that joinder is not a procedural indulgence available to every curious bystander, but a strictly regulated legal mechanism reserved for those whose rights stand to be directly aected by the outcome of the proceedings. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5524/eng@2026-09-21 10

page 10 of 16

40. On the other hand, the statutory framework governing boundary disputes is found in the provision of Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012. Section 18 (2) provides:“ The court shall not entertain any action or other proceedings relating to a dispute as to the boundaries of registered land unless the boundaries have been determined in accordance with this section.” 41. Section 19 (1) and (2) of the Act provides: (1) If the Registrar considers it desirable to indicate on a led plan approved by the oce or authority responsible for the survey of land, or otherwise to dene in the register, the precise position of the boundaries of a parcel or any parts thereof, or if an interested person has made an application to the Registrar, the Registrar shall give notice to the owners and occupiers of the land adjoining the boundaries in question of the intention to ascertain and x the boundaries. (2) The Registrar shall, after giving all persons appearing in the register an opportunity of being heard, cause to be dened by survey, the precise position of the boundaries in question, le a plan containing the necessary particulars and make a note in the register that the boundaries have been xed, and the plan shall be deemed to accurately dene the boundaries of the parcel. 42. The Court’s jurisdiction in relation to boundary disputes is therefore appellate in nature, and not original. This was armed in the case of:- “George Kamau Macharia – Versus - Dexka Limited [2019] KEELC 4596 (KLR)”, where the Court held that the provision of Section 18(2) of the Land Registration Act vests the mandate to resolve boundary disputes of land with general (as opposed to xed) boundaries in the Land Registrar, and that the Court’s role is limited to entertaining appeals from the Registrar's determination. 43. Having graphically stated the legal aspects of the substratum herein, the Honourable Court shall examine whether the Applicant has demonstrated a sucient, direct, and identiable stake in the proceedings to warrant joinder as an Interested Party. The rst and most fundamental question is whether the Applicant has demonstrated a personal interest or stake in the matter that is “clearly identiable and proximate enough, to stand apart from anything that is merely peripheral” — the threshold set by the Supreme Court in “Muruatetu (supra)”. 44. The Applicant has deposed, and it is not disputed, that he is the registered proprietor of land parcel Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1170, and has annexed a copy of his title deed thereto marked as “MNN -1”. He has further deposed, and annexed a copy of the Survey Report and Boundary Determination Report dated 19th June, 2025 marked as “MNN - 2”, that the said report recommends boundary realignments and conrmations not only in respect of parcels 568, 1854 and 1855, but also in respect of other neighbouring parcels, including parcel 1170.The Applicant's contention is that, owing to the interlocking nature of boundaries in the Galu/Kinondo area, the determinations, realignments, and survey recommendations in the report materially aect the spatial conguration of neighbouring parcels, including his parcel 1170. He avers that the implementation of the survey recommendations may directly impact the extent, boundary position, acreage, or peaceful occupation of his property. 45. The Plainti's response to this contention is two - fold. First, she contends that the Applicant is a “complete stranger” to the dispute, having never been a disputant in the boundary determination process. Secondly, she contends that the boundary having been conclusively determined by the Land Registrar, the only issues remaining before the Court are that of eviction and costs, which do not implicate the Applicant. With respect, the Court is unable to accept the Plainti's characterisation of the Applicant as a “complete stranger” to the dispute. The Applicant is the registered proprietor of a https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5524/eng@2026-09-21 11

page 11 of 16

parcel of land that, on his uncontroverted evidence, stands to be aected by the very survey report that the Plainti herself has expressly accepted and endorsed in her Replying Adavit (at paragraph 5). A registered proprietor whose parcel is directly aected by the recommendations of a survey report led in court proceedings cannot, in the Court's view, be fairly described as a stranger to those proceedings. 46. The Court further notes the Applicant’s deposition that he was not notied, invited, or involved in the boundary proceedings, notwithstanding that the recommendations have implications for his parcel. This raises a legitimate concern as to whether the boundary determination process, conducted under the provision of Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act, complied with the requirement in the provision of Section 19 (1) that the Registrar “shall give notice to the owners and occupiers of the land adjoining the boundaries in question”, and with the requirement in the provision of Section 19 (2) that the Registrar act “after giving all persons appearing in the register an opportunity of being heard.” 47. The Section 19 (1) of the Land Registration Act expressly contemplates that the owners and occupiers of land adjoining the boundaries in question shall be given notice of the Registrar’s intention to ascertain and x boundaries. If, as the Applicant contends, the survey report extends to and aects parcels beyond those of the immediate disputants — including parcel 1170 — then the Applicant, as the registered proprietor of an adjoining parcel, ought to have been given notice and an opportunity to be heard in accordance with the statute. 48. In the Court’s view, the Applicant's interest in the proceedings is neither remote nor speculative. It is direct, proximate, and identiable. He is the registered proprietor of a parcel that, on the face of the survey report, stands to be aected by the boundary realignments and conrmations recommended therein. His interest is precisely the kind of interest that the Supreme Court in “Mumo Matemo (Supra)” described as a “stake in the proceedings” — he is one who “will be aected by the decision of the Court when it is made, either way.” 49. The Court is fortied in this view by the decision in the case of:- “Communications Commission of Kenya & 4 Others – Versus - Royal Media Services Limited & 7 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 15 of 2014; [2014] eKLR”, where the Supreme Court, applying the “Mumo Matemo (Supra)” principles, held that a party whose interests stand to be aected by the decision of the Court ought to be aorded an opportunity to champion his or her cause. ISSUE No. b). Whether the Joinder of the Applicant is Necessary to enable the Court to Eectually and Completely Adjudicate upon and Settle all Questions Involved in the Suit. 50. Under this sub‑title, the main issue here is whether the joinder of the Applicant is necessary to enable the Court to eectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. The second question is whether the Applicant’s presence before the Court is necessary to enable the Court to “eectually and completely” adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, within the meaning of the provision of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. 51. The Court observes that the Survey Report and Boundary Determination Report dated 19th June, 2025, which is already led in this suit, recommends boundary realignments and conrmations in respect of the parcels in dispute and, on the Applicant's uncontroverted evidence, in respect of other neighbouring parcels, including parcel 1170. If the Court is to consider, adopt, or give eect to the recommendations of the said report, it would be manifestly unjust to do so without aording the proprietors of all aected parcels an opportunity to be heard.The Court cannot properly determine the eect and implementation of the survey report without the participation of all proprietors whose parcels stand to be aected by its recommendations. To proceed otherwise would expose the Court's eventual determination to challenge and inevitably result in a multiplicity of suits by aected https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5524/eng@2026-09-21 12

page 12 of 16

proprietors, contrary to the principle of ecient and economical use of scarce judicial resources, and contrary to the overriding objective as enshrined under the provision of Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21. 52. The Court further observes that the Plainti cannot approbate and reprobate. Having expressly embraced the survey report and its recommendations in her Replying Adavit, she cannot, in the same breath, oppose the participation of a proprietor whose land is directly aected by those very recommendations. To permit such conduct would be to sanction a manifest injustice. The Court is mindful of the Plainti's submission that the boundary dispute has been conclusively determined by the Land Registrar and that the only issues remaining before the Court are eviction and costs. However, with respect, this submission presupposes that the survey report — which the Court is being asked to adopt and give eect to — is immune from scrutiny in so far as it aects parcels beyond those of the immediate disputants. That presupposition is legally untenable. The Court cannot adopt and give eect to a report whose recommendations aect the proprietary rights of a person who was not heard, without aording that person an opportunity to be heard. 53. The Court is further guided by the principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem, which is a fundamental tenet of the rule of law and is constitutionally entrenched under the provision of Articles 25 ( c ), 47 and 50 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which guarantees every person the right to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application of law decided in a fair and public hearing before a court or independent tribunal. It would be a travesty of justice for the Court to make orders aecting the Applicant's proprietary rights over parcel 1170 without aording him an opportunity to be heard. ISSUE No. c). Whether the Application is an Abuse of the Process of the Court, having Regard to the Alleged Finality of the Statutory Boundary Determination. 54. Under this sub‑title, the main issue here is whether theApplication is an abuse of the process of the Court, having regard to the alleged nality of the statutory boundary determination. 55. The Plainti poetically contends that the Application is a “transparent afterthought,” a “desperate stratagem,” and an attempt to “unlawfully resurrect, re - litigate, and sabotage a concluded statutory determination through the back door……… an unmistakable attempt to hijack the Plainti's case and transform a narrow and straightforward dispute into an unnecessary and unwarranted controversy” She invokes the doctrine of exhaustion, citing “Speaker of the National Assembly – Versus - Karume [1992] KLR” and “Georey Muthinja & Another – Versus - Samuel Muguna Henry & 1756 Others [2015] eKLR”. The Court has carefully considered these submissions. The doctrine of exhaustion, as articulated in “Karume (supra)”, holds that “where there is a clear procedure for the redress of any particular grievance prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure should be strictly followed”. Similarly, in “Georey Muthinja (supra)”, the Court of Appeal held that “it is imperative that where a dispute resolution mechanism exists outside courts, the same be exhausted before the jurisdiction of the courts is invoked. Courts ought to be the fora of last resort and not the rst port of call.” 56. Undoubtedly, the Court fully endorses these principles. However, they are inapplicable to the present Application. Critically speaking, the Applicant is not seeking to challenge the boundary determination through collateral proceedings. He is not seeking to re-litigate the boundary dispute between the Plainti and the 1st Defendant. He is not invoking the Court's original jurisdiction over a boundary dispute in contravention of Section 18 (2) of the Land Registration Act. What the Applicant seeks is far more modest: to be joined as an Interested Party in proceedings that are already before this Court, so that he may be heard on the eect and implementation of a survey report that, on his uncontroverted https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5524/eng@2026-09-21 13

page 13 of 16

evidence, aects his parcel. This is not a collateral attack on the statutory determination. It is a request to be heard on a matter that directly aects his proprietary rights, in accordance with the principles of natural justice and fair administrative action under the provision of Article 47 of the Constitution. 57. The Court is further not persuaded by the Plainti's submission that the Applicant “cannot cry louder than the bereaved”. The 1st Defendant’s acceptance of the boundary determination is not, and cannot be, a bar to the Applicant’s right to be heard on the eect of the survey report on his own parcel. The Applicant's rights are separate and distinct from those of the 1st Defendant, and his participation in the proceedings cannot be foreclosed by the conduct of another party. 58. The Court is also not persuaded that the joinder will occasion any prejudice to the Plainti or any other party. The Applicant seeks leave to le necessary documents, responses, or adavits in the matter. His participation will not derail the proceedings. On the contrary, he will rather assist the Court in rendering a complete, fair, and enforceable determination of the issues in dispute, and will forestall the multiplicity of suits that would inevitably arise if aected proprietors were excluded. ISSUE No. d). Who ought to Bear the Costs of the Application 59. Under this sub‑title, the main issue here is who ought to bear the costs of the Intended Interested Party’s application. It is now well established that the issue of Costs is at the discretion of the Court. Costs meant the award that is granted to a party at the conclusion of the legal action, and proceedings in any litigation. The governing provision is Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21, which provides: “ Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, and to the provisions of any law for the time being in force, the costs of and incidental to all suits shall be in the discretion of the court or judge, and the court or judge shall have full power to determine by whom and out of what property and to what extent such costs are to be paid, and to give all necessary directions for the purposes aforesaid. Provided that the costs of any action, cause or other matter or issue shall follow the event unless the court or judge shall for good reason otherwise order.” 60. Thus, while the general rule is that costs follow the event, the Court retains discretion to depart from this principle where justice so demands. 61. This principle encourages responsible litigation and motivates parties to pursue valid claims. See the cases of “Harun Mutwiri – Versus - Nairobi City County Government [2018] eKLR” and “Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers – Versus - Bidco Africa Limited & Another [2015] eKLR”, the court rearmed that the successful party is typically entitled to costs, unless there are compelling reasons for the court to decide otherwise. In the case of “Hussein Muhumed Sirat – Versus - Attorney General & Another [2017] eKLR”, the court stated that costs follow the event as a wellestablished legal principle, and the successful party is entitled to costs unless there are other exceptional circumstances. 62. Applying these principles, the Court noted that the application for joinder was not frivolous, as the Intended Interested Party demonstrated a genuine concern that the survey recommendations might aect his parcel. However, the Plainti equally raised legitimate objections grounded in the doctrine of exhaustion and nality of statutory determinations. 63. In balancing the equities, the Court found that this was a matter where each party had advanced arguable positions, and the application was brought in good faith to protect proprietary interests. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5524/eng@2026-09-21 14

page 14 of 16

Accordingly, the Court holds that costs of the application ought to be in the cause, so that whichever party ultimately succeeds in the main suit will be entitled to recover costs. VI. Conclusion and Disposition. 64. Having carefully considered the Application, the Supporting Adavit, the Replying Adavit, the rival Written Submissions, and the applicable law, the Court nds as follows: 65. a. The Applicant, as the registered proprietor of land parcel Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1170, has demonstrated a direct, proximate, and identiable interest in the subject matter of this suit, within the meaning of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in Mumo Matemo (supra) and Muruatetu (supra). b. The Applicant's presence before the Court is necessary to enable the Court to eectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, within the meaning of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, particularly in light of the survey report's recommendations aecting neighbouring parcels. c. The joinder of the Applicant will occasion no prejudice to any party, whereas the refusal of the Application would occasion substantial prejudice to the Applicant, whose proprietary rights over parcel 1170 stand to be aected by the survey report. d. The Application is not an abuse of the process of the Court, and the doctrine of exhaustion is inapplicable to the circumstances of this case. In reaching this conclusion, the Court is guided by the overriding objective under the provision of Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, which mandates the Court to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate, and aordable resolution of disputes, and by the provision of Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution, which requires the Court to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities. Accordingly, the Court makes the following orders:- a. That the Notice of Motion application dated 15th December, 2025 do and is hereby Allowed. b. That the Applicant, Mike Nyaga Njeru, is hereby granted leave to join this suit as an Interested Party. c. That upon such joinder, the Interested Party is granted leave to le any necessary documents, responses, or adavits in this matter Within Fourteen (14) Days from the date of this Ruling. d. That the Interested Party shall be served with all further pleadings and documents in this matter. e. That for expediency sake, there shall be a mention on 29th October, 2026 for purposes of conducting a Pre – Trial Conference in accordance with the provision of Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. There shall be a hearing on 18th February, 2027 before ELC No. 1 at Kwale preferably through Physical means. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5524/eng@2026-09-21 15

page 15 of 16

f. That the Costs of the Application shall be in the cause. It Is So Ordered Accordingly. RULING DELIVERED THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAM VIRTUAL MEANS, SIGNED AND DATED AT KWALE THIS……21ST ……DAY OF ……SEPTEMBER.……..2026. …..……..……………………. HON. MR. JUSTICE L. L. NAIKUNI, JUDGE Ruling delivered in the presence of:a. Mr. Daniel Disii, the Court Assistant. b. Mr. Njumbale Advocate for the Plainti/Respondent. c. M/s. Kiti Advocate for the 2nd & 3rd Defendants/Respondents. d. Mr. Omagwa Advocate for the Intended Interested Party. e. No appearance for the 1st Defendant/Respondent. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5524/eng@2026-09-21 16

page 16 of 16