Obadiah Nguy o Kamwalo (Suing as the legal representative and administrator of the Estate of Kamwalo Kitai Nguyo) v Benson Kimanthi Kikuvi & Mutete Kamwalo; Peter Mwau Syovo (Intended Interested Party)

of ancestral land which the Plaintiff’s father unlawfully excised and registered in his name. 4. The deponent contended that orders staying the implementation of the decision Makueni Land Disputes Tribunal Case No. 25 of 2005 were issued by the court in Machakos HCMISC Application No. 262 of 2010 which was finalized as Makueni ELCLJR No. E009 of 2025. That the Plaintiff and the Defendants are aware of the judgment and a litany of other suits preceding the present suit. The Applicant asserted that he wishes to be made a party to the suit so that he can protect his interest in the suit property. 5. Opposing the application, the Plaintiff filed a replying affidavit sworn by himself on 4th March, 2026. He averred that the suit property in this case is UKIA/KILALA/595 which is registered in the name of his late father KAMWALO KITAI NGUYO on whose behalf he is pursuing the interests of the Estate against the Defendants. He added that the suit property at the Land Disputes Tribunal was land Parcel No. UKIA/KILALA/17 whose ownership was disputed between the Applicant and other parties who are not party to the present suit. 6. The Plaintiff contended that the two parcels of land are distinct and that he does not dispute the ownership of land Parcel No. UKIA/KILALA/17. He further contended that there is no judgment in Makueni ELCLJR No. E009 of 2025 among the documents annexed to the application as what has been attached is a court order dismissing the suit for want of prosecution. The deponent was of the view that the assertion of interest in the suit property land Parcel No. UKIA/KILALA/595 unfounded since the suit property is registered in the name of Kamwalo Kitai Nguyo. He maintained that the Applicant is a total stranger to the proceedings as he has no interest or stake in the matter. He urged the court to dismiss the application with costs. ELC NO. E010 OF 2022 2|Page

page 2 of 8

7. In the 1st Respondent’s replying affidavit sworn on 17th March, 2026, he averred that the Applicant has not placed before the court any documentary evidence showing that he is a beneficiary of the suit property. He further contended that the reliance by the Applicant of proceedings of the Makueni Land Disputes Tribunal does not confer ownership of the land upon him as to form a basis for the injunctive orders sought. He urged the court to dismiss the application with costs. 8. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. In the Applicant’s submissions dated 28th May, 2026, Counsel submitted that the Applicant had demonstrated a direct, substantial and legally recognizable interest in the suit property and that the land had been adjudged by courts and tribunals to belong to the Applicant. That the interest of the Applicant is neither remote nor speculative. It was submitted that the outcome of these proceedings will directly affect the Applicant’s proprietary rights over the suit property. 9. Citing the case of Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Matemo & 5 others [2014] KESC 32 (KLR), Counsel submitted that the Applicant had demonstrated an identifiable and legally protectable interest in the suit property. It was urged that the court ought to allow the application in its entirety as prayed. 10.In the Plaintiff’s written submissions dated 8 th April, 2026, Counsel submitted that the decision of the Makueni Land Disputes Tribunal does not confer upon the Applicant ownership rights in the suit property. Counsel reiterated that the title deed of the suit property is not registered in the Applicant’s name. It was submitted that the Applicant has not demonstrated an identifiable interest in the suit property and neither has he ever been in possession of the land. Counsel urged the court to dismiss the application with costs. ELC NO. E010 OF 2022 3|Page

page 3 of 8

11.The 1st Defendant filed his submissions dated 28 th May, 2026. Counsel restricted his submissions to the prayer for an interim order of injunction which it was submitted, the Applicant had not demonstrated the requisite threshold. 12.Upon a keen perusal of the application, it is noted that the prayers for stay of proceedings and a temporary injunction were made in the interim pending determination of the present application. The prayers were never granted and could not have been granted to a party who had not been joined in the proceedings. 13.After carefully considering the application, the replying affidavit and the rival submissions, the only issue for determination is whether the Applicant has demonstrated sufficient basis for joinder in the proceedings as an Interested Party. 14.Joinder of parties to proceedings is governed by Order 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. In respect to joinder of defendants to a suit Order 1 Rule 10 (2) outlines 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 plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added.’ 15.The term ‘interested party’ is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edn, at pg. 1232 as: “A party who has a recognizable stake (and therefore standing) in a matter.” ELC NO. E010 OF 2022 4|Page

page 4 of 8

16.The Supreme Court in the case of Attorney General v David Ndii & 73 Others (Petition 12 (EO16) of 2020) [2021] KESC 17 (KLR), enumerated the guiding principles in an application for joinder of an interested party as follows: “This court has laid down the guiding principles applicable in determining an application to be enjoined as an interested party in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu & 5 Others SC Petition (Application) No 12 of 2013. The principles were affirmed in the case of Francis Karioki Muruatetu & another v Republic & 5 others (supra) where the court stated: “…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, sufficient 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 identifiable and must be proximate enough, to stand apart from anything that is merely peripheral. (ii) The prejudice to be suffered 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) Lastly, a party must, in its application, set out the case and/or submissions it intends to make before the Court, and demonstrate the relevance of those submissions. It should also demonstrate that ELC NO. E010 OF 2022 5|Page

page 5 of 8

these submissions are not merely a replication of what the other parties will be making before the court” 17.The Applicant herein wishes to participate in the proceedings alleging a proprietary interest in land Parcel No. UKIA/KILALA/595 after the suit property was awarded to him by the Makueni District Land Disputes Tribunal in Case No. 25 of 2005 on 29th November, 2011. In pleading his case for joinder, the Applicant stated that the decision of the Land Disputes Tribunal was adopted as an order of the court but subsequently stayed by the High Court. He asserted that the decision of the High Court staying the Tribunal’s decision was vacated upon the order of this court issued on 6th November, 2025 dismissing the judicial review proceedings. 18.Upon consideration, it is noted that the Applicant did not annex either a copy of the decision of the Tribunal issued in Case No. 25 of 2005 or a copy of the ruling of the court adopting it as judgment. Again, it is noteworthy that since the issuance of the Tribunal’s decision, the Applicant has never moved the land registry for cancellation of the Plaintiff’s name on the land register. That aside, the Plaintiff asserted that the Applicant has never been in possession of the suit property, an averment that was not rebutted with evidence. 19.The Plaintiff, on the other hand has in his possession, a valid title deed issued on 17th May, 1995 which has not been impeached in accordance with the law. Section 25 (1) of the Land registration Act, 2012 sets out as follows: ‘The rights of a proprietor, whether acquired on first registration or subsequently for valuable consideration or by an order of court, shall not be liable to be defeated except as provided in this Act, and shall be held by the proprietor, together with all privileges and appurtenances belonging thereto, free from all other interests and claims whatsoever, but subject— ELC NO. E010 OF 2022 6|Page

page 6 of 8

(a) to the leases, charges and other encumbrances and to the conditions and restrictions, if any, shown in the register; and (b) to such liabilities, rights and interests as affect the same and are declared by section 28 not to require noting on the register, unless the contrary is expressed in the register.’ 20.It therefore remains evident that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate an identifiable and proximate enough stake in the present proceedings which is at risk of exposure to loss or damage if an order for joinder is disallowed. After due consideration of the pleadings, the application and the respective submissions, it is the finding of this court that the Applicant has not met the threshold for joinder as an interested party. No identifiable or legal stake has been demonstrated to warrant the court to exercise its discretion in the Applicant’s favour. 21.The upshot is that the application dated 10th February, 2026 is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed with costs. ............................................ HON. E. O. OBAGA, FCIArb JUDGE RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS THIS 8TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026. IN THE PRESENCE OF: Mr. Muthiani for Plaintiff/Respondent Mr. Makau for Defendant Ms Isika for Applicant ELC NO. E010 OF 2022 7|Page

page 7 of 8

Court Assistants- Jackline and Steve ELC NO. E010 OF 2022 8|Page

page 8 of 8