Others & 174 others v Kenya Railways Corporation & another

that at the time the other Claimants’ dues were being compiled, he had traveled home to care for his ailing mother and, although he had left his details with his advocate, he was not informed when the other Claimants were called for computation. 4. The Applicant further states that he was employed by Kenya Railways Corporation as an Artisan in Job Grade RB VI. He avers that on 3rd October 2025, he wrote to the Respondents and the advocates involved in the matter requesting that his dues be calculated together with those of the other Claimants, and the letter was duly delivered. 5. The Applicant states that he has not received any response to his request regarding the computation of his dues and is therefore not aware whether a computation of his dues has been presented to the Court by the Respondents. 6. He consequently asks the Court to direct the Respondents to calculate the amount due to him in the same manner as they calculated the dues owed to the other Claimants. 7. The application was opposed vide grounds of opposition led by the 1st Respondent and a Replying adavit sworn by James Kariuki Kaneki on 13th July, 2026 on behalf of the 2nd Respondent. 8. The 1st Respondent argues that the Applicant is a stranger to the suit, having not been a party to the proceedings and does not appear among the Claimants, Respondents, or Interested Parties listed in the suit. 9. The 1st Respondent further states that the application amounts to a review, as it seeks, in substance, to alter the Court’s Judgment delivered on 13th August 2021 by introducing the Applicant as a Claimant and beneciary of the award, without following the prescribed legal procedure. 10. It contends that the Court is now functus ocio, having already delivered judgment on 13th August 2021, and has thus exhausted its jurisdiction over the substantive dispute, and that the only outstanding issue is the computation of the amounts payable to the Claimants. 11. It further states that the Applicant was not part of the trial, and that the matter underwent several amendments and proceeded to full trial, but the Applicant’s name was never included or raised at any stage and no attempt was made to amend the Claim to introduce him as a Claimant. 12. The 1st Respondent further states that it produced records relating to all the Claimants during the trial, and that reopening the matter at the computation stage to introduce the Applicant would be dicult because the relevant records have since been archived and are not readily retrievable. 13. The Respondent contends that the Application was led hopelessly out of time, particularly noting that its appeal to the Court of Appeal was heard and judgment delivered on 8th November 2024. 14. On the foregoing grounds, the 1st Respondent maintains that the application constitutes an abuse of the Court’s process and should therefore be dismissed. 15. On its part, the 2nd Respondent argues that John Kabati Wanjau, the Applicant herein, is a stranger to these proceedings as he was never a party to the suit and therefore has no standing to seek the orders presently before the Court. 16. It argues that the grievances raised by John Kabati Wanjau appear to concern a dispute between him and Gregory Ndege & Associates, his alleged advocates, rather than a dispute properly arising against the 2nd Respondent. It contends that the nature of the reliefs sought by John Kabati Wanjau does not disclose any sustainable cause of action against it. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2518/eng@2026-09-24 2

page 2 of 4

17. The 2nd Respondent further states that, if John Kabati Wanjau was represented by Gregory Ndege & Associates in the proceedings, his present application is incompetent, on the basis that having allegedly been represented by Gregory Ndege & Associates, he cannot simultaneously purport to act in person in the present Application. 18. The 2nd Respondent maintains that it has no obligation to make any payment to John Kabati Wanjau in the manner proposed by him, pursuant to the Court’s Judgment delivered on 13th August 2021. 19. It is his position that the Applicant is not a party or beneciary under the judgment and therefore cannot properly seek payment from it based on that judgment. Analysis and Determination 20. The singular issue for determination is whether the Applicant has established a basis upon which this Court should direct the Respondents to compute and pay him dues pursuant to the judgment delivered on 13th August 2021. 21. The Applicant asserts that he is one of the Claimants in the matter and that his dues were inadvertently omitted when the dues of the other Claimants were computed. 22. The Respondents’ position, and which is not controverted, is that the Applicant was neither named as a Claimant nor otherwise joined as a party to the proceedings. More importantly, the Applicant does not point to any order by which he was ever joined to the suit. 23. A judgment of the court binds and confers enforceable rights upon the parties in whose favour orders are made. A person who was not a party cannot ordinarily, at the execution or computation stage, claim the benet of the judgment without rst establishing the legal basis upon which he became a party or beneciary of the proceedings. 24. The Applicant's present application, although expressed as one seeking computation, would necessarily require the Court to take a further step to recognize him as a Claimant and beneciary of the judgment of 13th August 2021. In my view, that is not a mere computational exercise. Computation presupposes an existing entitlement arising from the judgment. It does not create a new entitlement or enlarge the class of persons in whose favour the judgment was entered. 25. The Court of Appeal in JMK v MWM & another [2015] KECA 524 (KLR), considered the scope of joinder under Order 1 Rule 10(2) and observed that the rule contemplates joinder while proceedings are pending. The Court recognized that joinder may, in appropriate circumstances, occur after judgment where something substantive remains to be done, such as assessment of damages, but emphasized the limitation where proceedings have been nally disposed of. 26. The position was similarly considered in Samuel Matunde Muchina v Samuel Kiptoo Ruto & 9 Others [2020] KEELC 991 (KLR), where the Court, relying on JMK v MWM & Another, held that joinder ordinarily presupposes pending proceedings. The Court further noted that where judgment has already been entered, a person cannot simply be enjoined unless the judgment is rst reviewed or set aside in a manner that accommodates the proposed party's participation. 27. The Applicant herein is not seeking an order of joinder, amendment of the pleadings, review or setting aside of the judgment. Instead, he asks the Court to direct the Respondents to calculate his dues "along with" those of the Claimants. In substance, such an order would introduce the Applicant into a judgment in which he was not a party. The Court cannot achieve indirectly, through a computation order, what would ordinarily require an appropriate application to alter or otherwise impeach the judgment. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2518/eng@2026-09-24 3

page 3 of 4

28. The Applicant's explanation that he had traveled home to attend to his ailing mother when the other Claimants' dues were being compiled is insucient to confer upon him the status of a Claimant. Even assuming that he had left his details with the advocates then acting for the Claimants, there is no evidence before the Court that the Claim was led on his behalf, that his name appeared in any amended pleading, that he testied, or that the judgment expressly or by necessary implication adjudicated upon his claim. 29. Further, the Applicant has not placed before the Court the pleadings, judgment, decree or any other record demonstrating that he was inadvertently omitted from the list of Claimants despite having been a party to the proceedings. His assertion that he was "one of the Claimants" is therefore not, by itself, sucient. 30. The Applicant's letter of 3rd October 2025 requesting computation of his dues does not alter that position. At most, it demonstrates that he subsequently sought to have his alleged entitlement recognized, but does not establish that the judgment of 13th August 2021 adjudicated upon such entitlement. 31. The Court also takes note of the fact that the 1st Respondent's appeal on the judgment was determined on 8th November 2024. The Applicant thereafter waited until 18th February 2026 to present the present Motion. The delay alone would not necessarily defeat a properly constituted application for review or an application concerning execution. However, it reinforces the diculty of reopening a judgment that was delivered in 2021 and subsequently subjected to appellate proceedings, particularly where the Applicant has not demonstrated that he was a party to the original litigation. 32. I conclude by holding that no basis has been established for imposing upon the Respondents an obligation under the 2021 judgment in favour of a person who was not shown to be a party or beneciary of that judgment. 33. In the upshot, the Notice of Motion dated 18th February 2026 is found to be without merit and is hereby dismissed. 34. I make no orders on costs. 35. Orders accordingly. SIGNED, DATED, AND DELIVERED BY VIDEO-LINK AND IN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026. C. N. BAARI JUDGE Appearance: Mr. Odhiambo & Mr. Otieno present for the Claimants Ms. S. Kavagi present for the 1st Respondent Ms. Okwiri present for the 2nd Respondent Ms. Esther S -C/A https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelrc/2026/2518/eng@2026-09-24 4

page 4 of 4