Sylvester Opiyo Oduori (Suing as the legal administrator of the estate of Dismas Oduor Ogure) v John Omondi Oduor & 7 Others; Benedict Otieno Othiambo & 5 Others (Proposed Interested Parties)

seeking to be joined in these proceedings as interested parties. APPLICANTS’ CASE 2. The proposed interested parties contend that they are beneficiaries of the estate of the late Philip Ondus Titus Odhiambo, the registered proprietor of land parcel SAMIA/BUTABONA/579, which forms the subject matter of this suit. They aver that through succession proceedings they acquired beneficial interests in the suit property and are therefore directly affected by the outcome of the present proceedings. 3. According to the Applicants, the 2nd to 7th Defendants are their close relatives who have already entered appearance and filed a defence and counterclaim, the contents of which they adopt. They state that the suit property belonged to their late father who died in 2002 and that the land had been allocated to the respective family members by their parents. They therefore maintain that they possess a direct and identifiable stake in the dispute. BUSIA ELC NO. E034 OF 2025 – RULING Page 2 of 16

page 2 of 16

4. The Applicants further depose that although the confirmation of grant issued in Succession Cause No. 151 of 2017 was later revoked, the grant itself remained in existence and Benedict Otieno Odhiambo continues to be the administrator of the estate. They rely on the judgment delivered on appeal to argue that only the confirmation of grant was revoked and not the grant of letters of administration itself. They also state that another petition relating to the estate remains pending. 5. They further contend that this suit concerns ownership and interests in land rather than distribution of an estate and that all beneficiaries and occupants of the land should be heard before any determination is made. They state that each Applicant occupies a distinct portion of the land and collectively represents over one hundred family members. They assert that failure to join them would greatly prejudice them since they risk losing their homes without being heard, whereas the Plaintiff would suffer no prejudice if they are joined. BUSIA ELC NO. E034 OF 2025 – RULING Page 3 of 16

page 3 of 16

6. In their written submissions, the Applicants reiterate that they have demonstrated a sufficient legal and beneficial interest in the suit property; that they satisfy the legal principles governing joinder of interested parties; that their participation will assist the Court in effectually determining all questions in controversy; and that their presence will avoid multiplicity of suits. PLAINTIFF’S/RESPONDENT`S CASE 7. The Plaintiff opposes the application through the replying affidavit sworn on 2nd June 2026. 8. He deposes that the application was filed at the eleventh hour on the eve of the hearing of the main suit with the intention of delaying or frustrating the proceedings. He terms the application incompetent and devoid of merit. 9. The Plaintiff further states that the proposed interested parties previously instituted Busia CM Succession Cause No. 151 of 2017, through which they caused land parcel SAMIA/BUTABONA/579 to be subdivided amongst themselves while excluding the Plaintiff and his family despite their occupation of the land. BUSIA ELC NO. E034 OF 2025 – RULING Page 4 of 16

page 4 of 16

10. He avers that following objection proceedings, the grant was revoked and the resultant subdivision titles were cancelled, thereby restoring the original title in the name of the late Philip Ondus Titus Odhiambo. He annexes copies of the Court orders and correspondence from the Land Registrar to demonstrate that the subdivision titles relied upon by the Applicants no longer exist. 11. The Plaintiff further explains that after the revocation of the grant, he commenced citation proceedings to compel the beneficiaries to obtain representation to the estate. When they allegedly failed to do so, he obtained the necessary orders enabling John Omondi Oduor to obtain a limited grant for purposes of defending these proceedings. He therefore contends that the estate is already properly represented before the Court through the 1st Defendant. 12. It is further deposed that the Applicants no longer possess any legal interest capable of justifying joinder because the subdivision titles upon which they rely have been cancelled. The Plaintiff argues that if the Applicants wish to challenge the cancellation of their titles, their remedy lies before the BUSIA ELC NO. E034 OF 2025 – RULING Page 5 of 16

page 5 of 16

Succession Court and not through joinder in this land dispute. 13. The Plaintiff also contends that the Applicants deliberately ignored the citation proceedings but have now resurfaced after the suit had progressed substantially. He argues that they lack the requisite locus standi and have failed to satisfy the legal threshold for joinder as interested parties. 14. In response, the Applicants reiterate that Benedict Otieno Odhiambo remains the administrator of the estate notwithstanding the revocation of the confirmation of grant. They emphasize that the appellate Court distinguished between revocation of a confirmation of grant and revocation of the grant itself. 15. They further maintain that the suit concerns ownership of land and customary rights rather than succession alone. They deny that the Plaintiff’s annexures establish cancellation of all interests claimed by the Applicants and insist that they remain beneficiaries and long-term occupants of the land. They therefore urge the Court to allow the application so that all persons whose interests may be BUSIA ELC NO. E034 OF 2025 – RULING Page 6 of 16

page 6 of 16

affected are afforded an opportunity to participate in the proceedings. WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS 16. The Applicants submit that they have satisfied the legal threshold for joinder as interested parties because they have demonstrated a direct, identifiable and legally protectable stake in the suit SAMIA/BUTABONA/579, property, where namely they reside land parcel and claim beneficial interests as beneficiaries of the late Philip Ondus Titus Odhiambo. 17. They argue that each Applicant occupies a distinct portion of the suit land, their boundaries are well established, and together they represent their respective extended families comprising over one hundred persons. Consequently, any judgment rendered in their absence would directly affect their proprietary and occupation rights. 18. The Applicants further submit that they stand to suffer substantial prejudice if they are not enjoined since the Plaintiff seeks orders that may affect the land they occupy, whereas the Plaintiff will suffer no prejudice if they are joined BUSIA ELC NO. E034 OF 2025 – RULING Page 7 of 16

page 7 of 16

because he will still have the opportunity to respond to their pleadings and evidence. 19. They contend that the dispute before the Court is a land dispute involving ownership and occupation of the suit property rather than a succession dispute. They submit that all persons claiming interests in the land should be heard so that the Court may conclusively determine all questions relating to the property and avoid a multiplicity of proceedings. 20. The Applicants also submit that the Respondent’s reliance on the cancellation of the subdivision titles is misplaced because the Applicants remain beneficiaries and occupants of the original parcel. They argue that the cancellation of the subdivision titles did not extinguish their beneficial interests in the suit land. 21. Finally, they urge the Court to exercise its discretion in favour of joinder in the interests of justice, maintaining that their participation will assist the Court in effectually and completely determining all issues in controversy and ensure that no party is condemned unheard. BUSIA ELC NO. E034 OF 2025 – RULING Page 8 of 16

page 8 of 16

22. On the other hand, counsel for the Plaintiff maintains that the application is procedurally incompetent, having been brought by Chamber Summons instead of a Notice of Motion. He further submits that the application was deliberately filed on the eve of the hearing solely to delay the hearing of the main suit. 23. Counsel submits that the Applicants’ entire claim is founded on subdivision titles issued during the succession proceedings, yet those titles have since been cancelled following revocation of the confirmation of grant. Consequently, they presently have no legal nexus with the suit property capable of warranting their joinder. 24. The Plaintiff further argues that the estate of the registered proprietor is already represented by the 1st Defendant, who holds a valid grant ad litem, and therefore the Applicants have not demonstrated any distinct legal interest that is not already represented in these proceedings. Counsel urges the Court to dismiss the application with costs. ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION BUSIA ELC NO. E034 OF 2025 – RULING Page 9 of 16

page 9 of 16

25. I have carefully considered the Chamber Summons dated 13th May 2026, the supporting affidavit, the replying affidavit, the Applicants’ further affidavit, and the rival written submissions filed by the parties. In my view, the application raises one substantive issue for determination, namely: Whether the proposed interested parties/Applicants have satisfied the legal threshold for joinder as interested parties in this suit. 26. The law on joinder of parties is found in Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, which empowers the Court at any stage of the proceedings to add any person whose presence before the Court is necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. The Court also exercises this discretion in furtherance of the overriding objective under Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act and its inherent jurisdiction under Section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act. BUSIA ELC NO. E034 OF 2025 – RULING Page 10 of 16

page 10 of 16

27. The principles governing joinder of interested parties have been settled. In Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu & 5 Others (Civil Appeal 290 of 2012) [2013] KECA 445 (eKLR), the Court of Appeal defined an interested party as: “A person who, though not an original party to the proceedings, has an identifiable stake in the dispute and stands to be affected by the Court’s determination. Such a participate person seeks in to the proceedings on the basis that his or her interest may not be adequately represented by the existing parties” 28. Similarly, in Muruatetu & another v Republic; Kenya National Commission on Human Rights & 2 others (Interested Parties); Death Penalty Project (Intended Amicus Curiae) [2016] KESC 12 (KLR), the Court defined an interested party as, “A party who has a recognizable stake (and therefore standing) in a matter”. BUSIA ELC NO. E034 OF 2025 – RULING Page 11 of 16

page 11 of 16

29. In the present case Applicants contend that they are beneficiaries of the estate of the late Philip Ondus Titus Odhiambo and occupy portions of land parcel SAMIA/BUTABONA/579, and that they would be prejudiced if the matter proceeds in their absence. They further argue that this dispute concerns ownership and occupation of land and that their participation is necessary for the effectual determination of the issues in controversy. 30. The Respondent, however, opposes the application on the ground that the estate of the registered proprietor is already represented by the 1st Defendant, John Omondi Oduor, who was sued in his capacity as the legal representative of the estate of the late Philip Ondus Titus Odhiambo. The Respondent further maintains that the subdivision titles upon which the Applicants anchor their claim were cancelled following the revocation of the confirmation of grant in the succession proceedings, and consequently they no longer possess any independent legal interest requiring separate representation in these proceedings. BUSIA ELC NO. E034 OF 2025 – RULING Page 12 of 16

page 12 of 16

31. Having considered the rival positions, this Court is persuaded that the Applicants have not satisfied the legal threshold for joinder as interested parties. While they describe themselves as beneficiaries of the estate and occupants of the suit land, the subject matter of the present suit is already represented by the duly appointed legal representative of the estate, namely the 1st Defendant. The Applicants have not demonstrated that the 1st Defendant is unable or unwilling to safeguard the interests of the estate or that their interests are distinct from those already represented before the Court. 32. Further, the material before the Court shows that the subdivision titles upon which the Applicants principally rely were cancelled following the succession proceedings, with the parent title reverting to the name of the deceased. Consequently, any claim relating to the propriety of the succession process or the cancellation of those subdivision titles falls within the jurisdiction of the Succession Court and cannot, without more, constitute a basis for joinder in these proceedings. BUSIA ELC NO. E034 OF 2025 – RULING Page 13 of 16

page 13 of 16

33. Moreover, the Applicants’ intended participation would largely mirror the defence already available to the Defendants, particularly the 1st Defendant, who represents the estate from which the Applicants claim their interest. Their participation would therefore not introduce any distinct issue or evidence that cannot adequately be presented by the existing parties. The Applicants are beneficiaries of the estate represented by the 1st Defendant, who is the duly appointed legal representative of the said estate. By virtue of that relationship, the Applicants’ interests are derivative of, and arise from, the estate and are therefore sufficiently represented by the 1st Defendant in these proceedings. They do not demonstrate any independent or distinct claim against the estate or any separate interest that would require them to participate in the suit in their own capacity. Their proper role, if necessary, would be to appear as witnesses in support of the 1st Defendant’s defence rather than as interested parties. There being no claim by the Applicants against the estate and no distinct relief sought by or against them, their joinder as interested parties would BUSIA ELC NO. E034 OF 2025 – RULING Page 14 of 16

page 14 of 16

serve no useful purpose and would merely introduce parties whose interests are already represented in the proceedings 34. The Court also notes that the application was presented after the suit had substantially progressed and immediately before the scheduled hearing. Although delay alone is not a bar to joinder, the Applicants have not offered sufficient justification for seeking to be joined at such a late stage, particularly when the estate they claim under is already represented by a duly appointed administrator. 35. In the circumstances, I find that the Applicants have failed to establish a proximate and legally protectable interest distinct from that of the estate already represented in these proceedings, or to demonstrate that their presence is necessary for the effectual and complete adjudication of the issues before the Court. 36. Accordingly, the application for joinder does not meet the requirements of Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules and the principles enunciated in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu & 5 BUSIA ELC NO. E034 OF 2025 – RULING Page 15 of 16

page 15 of 16

Others (Civil Appeal 290 of 2012) [2013] KECA 445). The issue is therefore answered in the negative. DISPOSITION 37. Accordingly, I find that the Chamber Summons dated 13 th May 2026 is devoid of merit. Consequently, the application is hereby dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff/Respondent. 38. It is so ordered. Ruling dated, signed and delivered in open Court on this 6th day of October 2026. C. MUGAMBI JUDGE 6TH OCTOBER 2026 BUSIA ELC NO. E034 OF 2025 – RULING Page 16 of 16

page 16 of 16