The Applicants case
Thathini Development Company Ltd has come to this court vide application dated 29th October 2025 seeking orders that the Petitioner herein and its chairman Ainea Ragen be declared vexatious litigants and consequently be barred from instituting or continuing any legal proceedings without the express leave of this court. Moreover, that the current petition be stuck out for being an abuse of the process of the court. The applicant bases his application on the alleged petitioner habitual and unwarranted interference in land matters concerning parcels of land MN/11/829, MN/11/546 and MN/11/360 among others without any legal standing or legitimate interest, coupled with allegation of unauthorized practice of law by the petitioner’s chairman and consistent abuse of court process. It is devoid of merit.
The applicant submits that the question before me is simple thus, can the amorphous outfit by the pseudo name (CLEG) institute and prosecute the case before this court and what are their proprietary interest in the Ist Defendants parcels of land.
The applicant cites the case of Ayaaubkan Noorken Pathan =vs= State of Mahakashtra the where Supreme Court of India decreed that only persons who had legitimate interest or suffered direct injury maintain a suit in a court of law. That the said recalcitrant has been soliciting money from the unsuspecting members of public claiming and or fashioning himself as a "serious land matters" advocate in clear contravention of the Advocates Act.
That disallowing this application will be tantamount to allowing a quack have a platform in this court to further obtain money from the unsuspecting members of the public.
The applicant therefore prays that this court finds favour of the application and strike out the Instant suit for abuse of Court Process.
2nd Respondents Case
The 2nd respondent submits that the 1st petitioner and its chairman, Ainea Ragen are vexatious litigants. The terms vexatious in legal terms denotes litigation that is brought without sufficient grounds, solely to harass or annoy the opponent or for some ulterior motive. The honourable court in the case of Trust Bank Ltd –vs- Amin Company Ltd & Another [2000] KLR 164, succinctly defined vexatious litigation as follows:
"A pleading or an action is frivolous when it is without substance or groundless or fanciful and is vexatious when it lacks bona fides and is hopeless or offensive and tends to cause the opposite party unnecessary anxiety, trouble or expense. A pleading which tends to embarrass or delay fair trial is a pleading which is ambiguous or unintelligible or which states immaterial matters and raises irrelevant issues which may involve expenses which will prejudice the fair trial of the action.”
The Petitioners' actions squarely fall within this definition. They lack any proprietary or identifiable legal interest in the properties they purport to litigate upon and do not represent any party with a valid interest. Their involvement in these land matters is purely to annoy, frustrate legitimate legal interests, and cause humiliation.
Furthermore, the Petitioner's Chairman, Ainea Ragen, has demonstrated a clear pattern of abuse of the legal system for personal gain and mischievous purposes by posing as an advocate to the public, despite not being a qualified advocate under the Advocates Act. This conduct, coupled with his persistent attempts to join various cases (including those from 2024 and 2025 as stated in the Applicant's Affidavit). The Petitioner is a 'busy body' who uses the court system as a platform for publicity and to deceive the public into believing they are legal experts in land matters. This ulterior motive is precisely what the court in Peter O. Ngoge t/a OOP Ngoge & Associates Advocates v Muiruri [20221 KECA 566 (KLR) sought to prevent, stating at paragraph 17:
“However, if the suit is without substance or groundless or fanciful or is instituted with some ulterior motive which the law does not recognize a legitimate use of the process, the court will not allow its process to be as a forum for such ventures. To do this would amount to vexatious litigation which lack bonafides with the sole intention of causing the opposite party unnecessary anxiety, trouble and expense.”
The Vexatious Proceedings Act (Cap 41, Laws of Kenya) provides a mechanism to protect the courts and litigants from persons who habitually and persistently institute legal proceedings without any reasonable ground. Section 2(1) of the Act empowers the High Court to make an order declaring such a person a vexatious litigant and restraining them from instituting further proceedings without leave of the court.
The 2nd respondent cites the case of Meshack Ochieng v Attorney General [20201 eKLR, the court upheld the declaration of an applicant as a vexatious litigant, noting that he was on a 'mission to file numerous applications over the same matter without the leave of the court, despite having been declared a vexatious litigant.' The court in that case adopted the definition of a vexatious litigant as articulated in Camerado Insurance Agency v Superior Court of Sacramento County CV525328 (STOLZ) (1993).
This definition includes any person who repeatedly files unmeritorious motions or pleadings, or engages in frivolous tactics similar to those demonstrated by the petitioner in this instance.
The 2nd respondent further submits that the 1st Petitioner and its Chairman, Ainea Ragen, possess the requisite locus standi to initiate and pursue the current Petition. That it is a fundamental principle of law that for a party to invoke the jurisdiction of the court, they must demonstrate a direct and legitimate interest in the subject matter of the dispute. The 2 nd Respondent maintains that the Petitioner has no identifiable legal or beneficial interest in the land parcels MN/11/829, MN/11/546, and MN/11/360, nor do they represent any party with such an interest.
This Honourable Court's attention is drawn to the authoritative pronouncement from the Indian Supreme Court judgement in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, where the court affirmed only persons who had legitimate interest or suffered direct injury or could maintain a suit in a court of law. It observed as follows:
It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the authority/court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order, etc. in a court of law...
The 2nd respondent argues that while courts liberalize locus standi for genuine public causes, it is emphasized that such is only where there is a violation of Constitutional Rights or where Public Interest is at stake, and even then, the petitioner must act bona fide without ulterior motive. This is imperative to preserve the purity and sanctity of the public interest litigation.
The Petitioner has not demonstrated legitimate standing. He submits that this petition is brought by parties who are strangers to the dispute, lacking the requisite locus standi. Allowing such a Petition to proceed would not only encourage meddling in private affairs but also set a dangerous precedent, opening the floodgates for unwarranted litigation by individuals or entities with no genuine stake in litigation.
The 2nd respondent further contends that the Petition constitutes an abuse of the court process and should be struck out. The power to strike out pleadings is a drastic measure that ought to be exercised sparingly. However, the court must not shy away from exercising in clear and obvious cases of abuse of process. The Petitioners' actions, as detailed in the Applicant's replying affidavit, constitute an abuse of the court process. Their repeated attempts to join cases without a valid cause, their lack of locus standi, and the clear intent to frustrate legal processes for ulterior motives leave no doubt that this Petition is groundless and frivolous.
He urges the court to find that the current Petition is without substance and has no chance of succeeding. It is brought merely for purposes of annoyance, to gain a fanciful advantage, and ultimately, can lead to no possible good for the legitimate parties involved. Such actions clog the court system and divert resources from deserving cases, contrary to the overriding objective of civil procedure.
These elements constitute abuse of the court process as was in the case of Muchanga Investments Limited vs Safaris Unlimited (Africa) Ltd & 2 others Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2002 (2009) eKLR 229, where the court of appeal stated as follows;-
The term abuse of court process has the same meaning as abuse of judicial process. The employment of judicial process is regarded as an abuse when a party uses the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent and the efficient and effective administration of justice. It is a term generally applied to a proceeding, which is wanting in bonafides and frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.
The Petitioners' chairman's engagement in unauthorized practice of law further compounds the abusive nature of this Petition. This indicates a blatant disregard for legal professionalism and an attempt to manipulate the court system for illicit purposes. Allowing such conduct to continue unchecked would undermine the integrity of the judicial process.
In conclusion, the Petition is not a genuine attempt to seek justice but a calculated maneuver to harass, vex, and exploit the legal system for personal objectives. It is frivolous, vexatious, and a clear abuse of the court process.
The petitioners Responce
The petitioner submits that the applicant has no requisite locus to move this court in declaring the Petitioner/Applicant a vexatious litigant restraining the Petitioner/Applicant from further suits.
He cites the case of Patel Vs Direct O Auctioneers & 2 Others (Environment and land case E187 of 2025 February 2026 Ruling before Justice O A Angote where the court found thus;
The law that governs vexatious proceedings in Kenya is the
Vexatious Proceedings Act. Section 2 of the Act empowers the High Court (read ELC) to declare a person a vexatious litigant. It provides: "If, on an application made by the Attorney-General under this section, the High Court is satisfied that any person has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious proceedings, whether civil or criminal, and whether in the High Court or in any subordinate court, and whether against the same person or against different persons, the Court may, after hearing that person or giving him an opportunity of being heard, make an order declaring such person to be a vexatious litigant"
A simple reading of Section 2 (1) of the Act makes it clear that it is only the Attorney General who has the mandate to institute proceedings to have a person or an entity declared a vexatious litigant.
The court went further to elaborate as thus;
The court opines that the Vexatious Proceedings Act was enacted to protect the court process from abuse through frivolous or vexatious litigation, while at the same time preserving the fundamental right of every person to access justice and to have disputes determined in a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial court or tribunal, as guaranteed under Article 50(1) of the Constitution.
To safeguard that constitutional right, Parliament deliberately confined the power to institute proceedings seeking to have a person declared a vexatious litigant to the Attorney General. The statutory framework is explicit as to who may move the court in that regard.
He ultimately submits that the Application dated 29th October 2025 by the 1st Respondent/Applicant cannot be sustained both in law and facts: It is dead on arrival and should be dismissed with cost.
Analysis and Determination
The law that governs vexatious proceedings in Kenya is the Vexatious Proceedings Act, CAP 41, Laws of Kenya. Section 2 of the Act empowers the High Court (ELC) to declare a person a vexatious litigant. Section 2 (1) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act stipulates that:-
“ If, on an application made by the Attorney-General under this section, the High Court is satisfied that any person has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious proceedings, whether civil or criminal, and whether in the High Court or in any subordinate court, and whether against the same person or against deferent persons, the Court may, after hearing that person or giving him an opportunity of being heard, make an order declaring such person to be a vexatious litigant.”
A simple reading of Section 2 (1) of the Act is that it is only the Attorney General who has the mandate to institute proceedings to have a person or an entity declared a vexatious litigant. A vexatious litigant is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary Tenth Edition as “A litigant who repeatedly File frivolous law suits”.
In the local context, a vexatious litigant was defined in the case of Attorney General v. Meshack Ochieng T/A Mecko Enterprises Ltd [2019] eKLR where the court quoted a decision in the case of Camerado
Insurance Agency v. Superior Court of Sacramento County CV 52538 (STOLZ) [1993] in which it was held that a vexatious litigant is a person who does any of the following:-
“ a) In the immediately preceding seven year period has commenced, prosecuted or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been;Finally determined adversely to the person or Unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing
b) After a litigation has been finally determined against the person, he/she repeatedly re-litigates or attempts to re-litigate in propria persona either:
i) The validity of the determination against the same defendant as
to whom the litigation was finally determined or
ii) The cause of caution, claim or controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination
against the same defendant
c) In any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files unmeritous motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery or engages in other tactics that are frivolous.”
This court observes that the Vexatious Proceedings Act was enacted to safeguard the courts from vexatious and frivolous law suits without denying any person the right to access justice and to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application decided in a fair and public hearing before a court or if appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or body as guaranteed under Article 50 (1) of the Constitution. In order to safeguard the right to a fair hearing, the lawmakers deemed it fit to confine the right to make an application to declare one a vexatious litigant, to the Attorney General. The Act is expressly clear on who has the power to make an application to the court. The applicant does not have such power and therefore the application is dismissed with no orders as to costs.
Thathini Development Company Ltd has come to this court vide application dated 29th October 2025 seeking orders that the Petitioner herein and its chairman Ainea Ragen be declared vexatious litigants and consequently be barred from instituting or continuing any legal proceedings without the express leave of this court. Moreover, that the current petition be stuck out for being an abuse of the process of the court. The applicant bases his application on the alleged petitioner habitual and unwarranted interference in land matters concerning parcels of land MN/11/829, MN/11/546 and MN/11/360 among others without any legal standing or legitimate interest, coupled with allegation of unauthorized practice of law by the petitioner’s chairman and consistent abuse of court process. It is devoid of merit.
The applicant submits that the question before me is simple thus, can the amorphous outfit by the pseudo name (CLEG) institute and prosecute the case before this court and what are their proprietary interest in the Ist Defendants parcels of land.
The applicant cites the case of Ayaaubkan Noorken Pathan =vs= State of Mahakashtra the where Supreme Court of India decreed that only persons who had legitimate interest or suffered direct injury maintain a suit in a court of law. That the said recalcitrant has been soliciting money from the unsuspecting members of public claiming and or fashioning himself as a "serious land matters" advocate in clear contravention of the Advocates Act.
That disallowing this application will be tantamount to allowing a quack have a platform in this court to further obtain money from the unsuspecting members of the public.
The applicant therefore prays that this court finds favour of the application and strike out the Instant suit for abuse of Court Process.
2nd Respondents Case
The 2nd respondent submits that the 1st petitioner and its chairman, Ainea Ragen are vexatious litigants. The terms vexatious in legal terms denotes litigation that is brought without sufficient grounds, solely to harass or annoy the opponent or for some ulterior motive. The honourable court in the case of Trust Bank Ltd –vs- Amin Company Ltd & Another [2000] KLR 164, succinctly defined vexatious litigation as follows:
"A pleading or an action is frivolous when it is without substance or groundless or fanciful and is vexatious when it lacks bona fides and is hopeless or offensive and tends to cause the opposite party unnecessary anxiety, trouble or expense. A pleading which tends to embarrass or delay fair trial is a pleading which is ambiguous or unintelligible or which states immaterial matters and raises irrelevant issues which may involve expenses which will prejudice the fair trial of the action.”
The Petitioners' actions squarely fall within this definition. They lack any proprietary or identifiable legal interest in the properties they purport to litigate upon and do not represent any party with a valid interest. Their involvement in these land matters is purely to annoy, frustrate legitimate legal interests, and cause humiliation.
Furthermore, the Petitioner's Chairman, Ainea Ragen, has demonstrated a clear pattern of abuse of the legal system for personal gain and mischievous purposes by posing as an advocate to the public, despite not being a qualified advocate under the Advocates Act. This conduct, coupled with his persistent attempts to join various cases (including those from 2024 and 2025 as stated in the Applicant's Affidavit). The Petitioner is a 'busy body' who uses the court system as a platform for publicity and to deceive the public into believing they are legal experts in land matters. This ulterior motive is precisely what the court in Peter O. Ngoge t/a OOP Ngoge & Associates Advocates v Muiruri [20221 KECA 566 (KLR) sought to prevent, stating at paragraph 17:
“However, if the suit is without substance or groundless or fanciful or is instituted with some ulterior motive which the law does not recognize a legitimate use of the process, the court will not allow its process to be as a forum for such ventures. To do this would amount to vexatious litigation which lack bonafides with the sole intention of causing the opposite party unnecessary anxiety, trouble and expense.”
The Vexatious Proceedings Act (Cap 41, Laws of Kenya) provides a mechanism to protect the courts and litigants from persons who habitually and persistently institute legal proceedings without any reasonable ground. Section 2(1) of the Act empowers the High Court to make an order declaring such a person a vexatious litigant and restraining them from instituting further proceedings without leave of the court.
The 2nd respondent cites the case of Meshack Ochieng v Attorney General [20201 eKLR, the court upheld the declaration of an applicant as a vexatious litigant, noting that he was on a 'mission to file numerous applications over the same matter without the leave of the court, despite having been declared a vexatious litigant.' The court in that case adopted the definition of a vexatious litigant as articulated in Camerado Insurance Agency v Superior Court of Sacramento County CV525328 (STOLZ) (1993).
This definition includes any person who repeatedly files unmeritorious motions or pleadings, or engages in frivolous tactics similar to those demonstrated by the petitioner in this instance.
The 2nd respondent further submits that the 1st Petitioner and its Chairman, Ainea Ragen, possess the requisite locus standi to initiate and pursue the current Petition. That it is a fundamental principle of law that for a party to invoke the jurisdiction of the court, they must demonstrate a direct and legitimate interest in the subject matter of the dispute. The 2 nd Respondent maintains that the Petitioner has no identifiable legal or beneficial interest in the land parcels MN/11/829, MN/11/546, and MN/11/360, nor do they represent any party with such an interest.
This Honourable Court's attention is drawn to the authoritative pronouncement from the Indian Supreme Court judgement in the case of Ayaaubkhan Noorkhan Pathan v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2013) 4 SCC 465, where the court affirmed only persons who had legitimate interest or suffered direct injury or could maintain a suit in a court of law. It observed as follows:
It is a settled legal proposition that a stranger cannot be permitted to meddle in any proceeding, unless he satisfies the authority/court, that he falls within the category of aggrieved persons. Only a person who has suffered, or suffers from legal injury can challenge the act/action/order, etc. in a court of law...
The 2nd respondent argues that while courts liberalize locus standi for genuine public causes, it is emphasized that such is only where there is a violation of Constitutional Rights or where Public Interest is at stake, and even then, the petitioner must act bona fide without ulterior motive. This is imperative to preserve the purity and sanctity of the public interest litigation.
The Petitioner has not demonstrated legitimate standing. He submits that this petition is brought by parties who are strangers to the dispute, lacking the requisite locus standi. Allowing such a Petition to proceed would not only encourage meddling in private affairs but also set a dangerous precedent, opening the floodgates for unwarranted litigation by individuals or entities with no genuine stake in litigation.
The 2nd respondent further contends that the Petition constitutes an abuse of the court process and should be struck out. The power to strike out pleadings is a drastic measure that ought to be exercised sparingly. However, the court must not shy away from exercising in clear and obvious cases of abuse of process. The Petitioners' actions, as detailed in the Applicant's replying affidavit, constitute an abuse of the court process. Their repeated attempts to join cases without a valid cause, their lack of locus standi, and the clear intent to frustrate legal processes for ulterior motives leave no doubt that this Petition is groundless and frivolous.
He urges the court to find that the current Petition is without substance and has no chance of succeeding. It is brought merely for purposes of annoyance, to gain a fanciful advantage, and ultimately, can lead to no possible good for the legitimate parties involved. Such actions clog the court system and divert resources from deserving cases, contrary to the overriding objective of civil procedure.
These elements constitute abuse of the court process as was in the case of Muchanga Investments Limited vs Safaris Unlimited (Africa) Ltd & 2 others Civil Appeal No. 25 of 2002 (2009) eKLR 229, where the court of appeal stated as follows;-
The term abuse of court process has the same meaning as abuse of judicial process. The employment of judicial process is regarded as an abuse when a party uses the judicial process to the irritation and annoyance of his opponent and the efficient and effective administration of justice. It is a term generally applied to a proceeding, which is wanting in bonafides and frivolous, vexatious or oppressive.
The Petitioners' chairman's engagement in unauthorized practice of law further compounds the abusive nature of this Petition. This indicates a blatant disregard for legal professionalism and an attempt to manipulate the court system for illicit purposes. Allowing such conduct to continue unchecked would undermine the integrity of the judicial process.
In conclusion, the Petition is not a genuine attempt to seek justice but a calculated maneuver to harass, vex, and exploit the legal system for personal objectives. It is frivolous, vexatious, and a clear abuse of the court process.
The petitioners Responce
The petitioner submits that the applicant has no requisite locus to move this court in declaring the Petitioner/Applicant a vexatious litigant restraining the Petitioner/Applicant from further suits.
He cites the case of Patel Vs Direct O Auctioneers & 2 Others (Environment and land case E187 of 2025 February 2026 Ruling before Justice O A Angote where the court found thus;
The law that governs vexatious proceedings in Kenya is the
Vexatious Proceedings Act. Section 2 of the Act empowers the High Court (read ELC) to declare a person a vexatious litigant. It provides: "If, on an application made by the Attorney-General under this section, the High Court is satisfied that any person has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious proceedings, whether civil or criminal, and whether in the High Court or in any subordinate court, and whether against the same person or against different persons, the Court may, after hearing that person or giving him an opportunity of being heard, make an order declaring such person to be a vexatious litigant"
A simple reading of Section 2 (1) of the Act makes it clear that it is only the Attorney General who has the mandate to institute proceedings to have a person or an entity declared a vexatious litigant.
The court went further to elaborate as thus;
The court opines that the Vexatious Proceedings Act was enacted to protect the court process from abuse through frivolous or vexatious litigation, while at the same time preserving the fundamental right of every person to access justice and to have disputes determined in a fair and public hearing before an independent and impartial court or tribunal, as guaranteed under Article 50(1) of the Constitution.
To safeguard that constitutional right, Parliament deliberately confined the power to institute proceedings seeking to have a person declared a vexatious litigant to the Attorney General. The statutory framework is explicit as to who may move the court in that regard.
He ultimately submits that the Application dated 29th October 2025 by the 1st Respondent/Applicant cannot be sustained both in law and facts: It is dead on arrival and should be dismissed with cost.
Analysis and Determination
The law that governs vexatious proceedings in Kenya is the Vexatious Proceedings Act, CAP 41, Laws of Kenya. Section 2 of the Act empowers the High Court (ELC) to declare a person a vexatious litigant. Section 2 (1) of the Vexatious Proceedings Act stipulates that:-
“ If, on an application made by the Attorney-General under this section, the High Court is satisfied that any person has habitually and persistently and without any reasonable ground instituted vexatious proceedings, whether civil or criminal, and whether in the High Court or in any subordinate court, and whether against the same person or against deferent persons, the Court may, after hearing that person or giving him an opportunity of being heard, make an order declaring such person to be a vexatious litigant.”
A simple reading of Section 2 (1) of the Act is that it is only the Attorney General who has the mandate to institute proceedings to have a person or an entity declared a vexatious litigant. A vexatious litigant is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary Tenth Edition as “A litigant who repeatedly File frivolous law suits”.
In the local context, a vexatious litigant was defined in the case of Attorney General v. Meshack Ochieng T/A Mecko Enterprises Ltd [2019] eKLR where the court quoted a decision in the case of Camerado
Insurance Agency v. Superior Court of Sacramento County CV 52538 (STOLZ) [1993] in which it was held that a vexatious litigant is a person who does any of the following:-
“ a) In the immediately preceding seven year period has commenced, prosecuted or maintained in propria persona at least five litigations other than in a small claims court that have been;Finally determined adversely to the person or Unjustifiably permitted to remain pending at least two years without having been brought to trial or hearing
b) After a litigation has been finally determined against the person, he/she repeatedly re-litigates or attempts to re-litigate in propria persona either:
i) The validity of the determination against the same defendant as
to whom the litigation was finally determined or
ii) The cause of caution, claim or controversy, or any of the issues of fact or law, determined or concluded by the final determination
against the same defendant
c) In any litigation while acting in propria persona, repeatedly files unmeritous motions, pleadings, or other papers, conducts unnecessary discovery or engages in other tactics that are frivolous.”
This court observes that the Vexatious Proceedings Act was enacted to safeguard the courts from vexatious and frivolous law suits without denying any person the right to access justice and to have any dispute that can be resolved by the application decided in a fair and public hearing before a court or if appropriate, another independent and impartial tribunal or body as guaranteed under Article 50 (1) of the Constitution. In order to safeguard the right to a fair hearing, the lawmakers deemed it fit to confine the right to make an application to declare one a vexatious litigant, to the Attorney General. The Act is expressly clear on who has the power to make an application to the court. The applicant does not have such power and therefore the application is dismissed with no orders as to costs.