Kimutai (Suing as the Legal Administrator of the Estate of the Late Jeremiah Kimutai Cheruiyot) v Gajjars and Company & 4 others

d. 2. That the costs of this application be in the cause. The application is premised on grounds on its face and on the 2nd Intended Interested party’s supporting adavit. She avers that the 1st Intended Interested Party and herself are beneciaries of the estate of Jeremiah Kimutai Cheruiyot, which is administered by the Plainti but his presence notwithstanding, they are constrained to seek joinder because he has failed to adequately represent their interest and to disclose material facts relating to this suit to them, thus they stand to suer prejudice if they are not joined. She points out that they have never been involved or consulted or their statements taken since the suit was led in 2021, yet they were raised in the said suit property by their late parents, thus they understand its history better than the administrator. She states that she personally used to work with her late mother on the suit property as an accountant in her business, Nerkwo Inn (Restaurant) in the 1990s. Further, that they learned of the alleged sale of the suit property through a WhatsApp Group by the name Urban Prime Real Estate Sales and they were also not aware of the suit, they did their own due diligence in Court through its Public Information Desk and found out about it. They reiterate that the application is made in good faith and in the interest of justice. Response 3. In opposition, the 1st Defendant vide a replying adavit sworn by Newton Omondi Osiemo. He avers that the application is an abuse of Court process, intended to scuttle the hearing of the suit which has taken o. He points out that the suit was led ve (5) years ago yet the Intended Interested parties who are sisters to the Plainti feign ignorance of its existence. Further, that what gives one locus standi to represent an estate is a Grant of Letters of Administration, which were issued to the Plainti thus if the Intended Interested Parties are dissatised with his representation, they ought to le the appropriate application to replace him or become co-administrators. 4. He insists that there is no evidence that the suit property forms part of the estate of the deceased. He claims that the Intended Interested parties have not demonstrated how their participation in the proceedings will assist the Court to eectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. Further, that it will be prejudicial if the Court entertains further delay in the matter when the 1st Defendant has been disposed of its land through fraud and the Plainti continues to enjoy an injunction. 5. The Plainti including the 2nd and 3rd Defendants did not oppose the application, which was canvassed by way of written submissions. Submissions 6. The Intended Interested Parties submit that beneciaries can be added to a suit despite the presence of an administrator, where such an administrator fails to adequately safeguards the interests of beneciaries. They urge the Court to exercise discretion in their favour. To buttress their averments, they relied on the case of Benjamin K. Kipkulei v County Government of Mombasa & Another [2015] eKLR. 7. The 1st Defendant did not le submissions. Analysis and Determination 8. I have considered the instant Notice of Motion application including the respective adavits as well as the Applicants’ submissions and the only issue for determination is whether the Intended Interested Parties have met the threshold for joinder as Interested Parties. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6194/eng@2026-10-06 2

page 2 of 4

9. The Intended Interested Parties aver that they are constrained to seek joinder because the Plainti who is the administrator of the deceased estate is engaged in conduct that does not safeguard their interest as beneciaries, including non-disclosure of material facts. They claim that they were not aware of this suit and the alleged sale of the suit property yet they are properly versed with its history having allegedly been raised and worked thereon in the 1990’s. 10. On its part, the 1st Defendant contends that only a person issued with letters of administration of an estate of a deceased person has locus to represent such an estate in a suit. Further, that the Intended Interested Parties did not demonstrate that their joinder will assist the Court to eectually determine this matter. 11. Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules gives this Court discretion to join a party in a suit and stipulates thus: “ 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 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 to eectually and completely to adjudicate upon or settle all questions involved in the suit, be added.” 12. In Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu & 5 Others [2014] eKLR, the court dened an interested party as: “ ...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. See also the case of Meme v. Republic [2004] KLR cited by the Court of Appeal in Pravin Bowry v John Ward and Another [2015] eKLR. 14. The 1st Defendant has contended that the Intended Interested Parties do not have locus to represent the estate of the deceased. However, I note they only seek joinder as beneciaries of the deceased estate who have an alleged interest in the suit. Section 82(a) of the Law of Succession Act restricts the power to enforce causes of action on behalf of a deceased person to personal representatives. The Court of Appeal stated as follows in Trouistik Union International & Another v Jane Mbeyu & Another [1993] eKLR: “ To determine who may sue on behalf of the estate of a deceased person, one must look at the Law of Succession Act ... only personal representatives have capacity to act in that regard.” 15. Based on the facts as presented while relying on the legal provisions cited and associating myself with the decisions quoted, I nd that since the Plainti is the administrator of the deceased estate and is hence the personal representative, he is the one with the capacity to act for the said estate. Further, if the proposed Interested Parties are aggrieved by the way he is managing the said estate, they have a recourse to make an application within the related Probate and Administration Cause to be joined as administrators. 16. In the foregoing, I nd the instant Notice of Motion application unmerited and will disallow it. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6194/eng@2026-10-06 3

page 3 of 4

17. Costs will be in the cause. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 5TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026 CHRISTINE OCHIENG JUDGE In the presence of: Ms Kimuge for Mureithi for 1st and 2nd Interested Parties Tinga for Osiemo for 1st Defendant Kamau for 2nd and 3rd Respondents Court Assistant: Joan https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/6194/eng@2026-10-06 4

page 4 of 4