'
1. The application dated 28th April 2025 expressed under Section 1, 1A, 1B, 3, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 1 rule 10 (2) of the Civil procedure rules and Section 93 of the Land Registration Act, seeks an order that the applicant be enjoined as an interested party in this suit.
2. The application is premised on the grounds on its face and supported by the affidavit of Agnes Kabon Mongo sworn on 28th April, 2025. She deposes that she is the spouse to the defendant and therefore has a life interest in Lembus/Kabimoi/ 160 (here after referred to as the suit property); that the sale is illegal ab-initio because she was not consulted prior to the sale of the suit property and did not give spousal consent to validate the sale; that the suit property is family land and she did not benefit from the proceeds of the sale. She prays that she be enjoined in the suit as an interested party so that her case can be heard alongside the cases for the plaintiff and the defendant.
3. The application is opposed vide the replying affidavit of Clifford Kipkorir Kogei, the plaintiff herein, sworn on 15th May, 2025. He deposes that the application is fatally defective, frivolous, an abuse of the court process and meant to delay the case; that the applicant who is a stranger to him, has not availed any evidence showing that she is a wife/ spouse to the defendant; that the suit property is family land; that she has an overriding interest over the suit property and/or how she bought the land with the defendant for the benefit of the children. He avers that the defendant and the applicant have never resided in the suit property and that he took possession in 2012 and has been in exclusive occupation to date.
4. He avers that at the time of execution of the sale agreement on 3rd March 2012, spousal consent was not a requirement as the Land Act 2012 and the Land Registration Act 2012 had not been enacted.
5. Pursuant to the directions given on 11th June 2025, the application was disposed of by way of written submissions.
SUBMISSIONS
Intended interested party/applicant’s submissions.
6. In her submissions dated 3rd July, 2025, the applicant identified seven issues for determination. These are; -
i) Whether the application is vexatious, frivolous or abuse of the court process?
ii) Whether any proof exists that the applicant is a spouse to the defendant/respondent?
iii) Whether the property (suit property) is a family property as such the applicant has overriding interest?
iv) Whether the plaintiff/respondent herein ever took active possession of the said suit property?
v) Whether the spousal consent required pursuant to Section 93 of Land Registration Act is retrospective in this subject matter?
vi) Whether the subject matter, i.e. the land referenced herein was bought by the applicant and the defendant herein for the benefit of their children.
vii) Whether the application by the applicant herein is merited?
7. On whether the application is vexatious, frivolous or an abuse of the court process, it is submitted that the application is not vexatious, frivolous or an abuse of the court process because for an application to be considered as such, it must satisfy the criteria that it raises no triable issues of law, is a prolife rage of judicial time and is not anchored in law. In support of what constitutes a frivolous and vexatious suit, the applicant relied on the cases of Misc Civil Suit El63 of 2021 Hon A.G vs David Oscar Qwako, eKLR & Samuel Kahiu v/s Jacinta Akinyi, Assistant County Commissioner Loodo Kilani Ward/Division & Another (2018) eKLR
8. On whether there is proof that the applicant is a spouse to the defendant/respondent, it is submitted that the applicant is a wife in a monogamous relationship with the defendant which was consummated through traditional Tugen customary rites and they have 10 children; that the land was registered in trust for the family in the name of the defendant as evidenced by the supporting affidavit of the applicant sworn on 28th April, 2025.
9. On whether the suit property is family property and as such, the applicant has an overriding interest, it is submitted that the suit property is family property having been acquired during subsistence of their marriage. She relied on the cases of Mburu vs Wainaina (Civil Appeal 143 of 2019) (2025) and Isack M Inanga Kiebia v/s Isaya Theuri M Lintary & Another (2018) eKLR.
10. On whether the spousal consent required pursuant to Section 93 of Land Registration Act is retrospective in this subject matter, it is submitted that whilst it’s true that the plaintiff purchased the land two months before adoption of the Land Registration Act, 2012, which has its underpinning from the Constitution of Kenya of 2010, the Constitution cannot be subjected to the principles of statutory interpretation that prohibit retrospectivity or not. Therefore, the argument by the appellant that Article 47 of the Constitution cannot operate retrospectively, is not an absolute position and does not prevent courts from applying provisions of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 when developing the law or interpreting statues with respect to actions or omissions that occurred before the enactment of the Constitution. They relied on the decisions in Samuel Kamau Macharia, the official receiver, Madhupaper International Ltd v. KCB Limited, Kenya Commercial Finance Co Ltd and Kenya National Capital Ltd, Civil Appeal 73 of 2020 and Kenya Revenue Authority vs Bharat General Agency.
11. On whether the suit property was bought by the applicant and the defendant for the benefit of their children it is submitted that the applicant acquired the suit property together with the defendant in trust for their children.
12. On whether the application by the applicant is merited, it is submitted that application is anchored on the law by virtue of Article 68 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 which enshrines protection of matrimonial property, the Land Registration Act Section 93 and Civil Procedure Rules which allow the applicant a right for audience before the court at any stage before judgment. As such, any interested party can be enjoined in a suit. They relied on the case of Faith Muthomi Kamau vs Paul Kamau and another in Para. 11 referencing Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another vs Republic & 5 others SCOK Petition No. 15 as consolidated with No. 16 of 2013. which set out requirements for a successful application for joinder as an interested party.
Plaintiff/Respondent’s written submissions.
13. In his submissions dated 8th July 2025, the plaintiff identified the following as the issues for determination;
i) Whether the interested party was the defendant’s wife at the material time of execution of the sale agreement dated 3rd March, 2012.
ii) Whether the suit land was acquired jointly and therefore qualifies to be matrimonial property.
iii) Whether the interested party has an overriding interest over the suit property by dint of spousal consent.
14. On whether the interested party was the defendant’s wife at the time of execution of the sale agreement, it is submitted that the applicant has failed to furnish sufficient evidence in support of her alleged marriage to the defendant/respondent. This is contrary to the provisions of Section 107 of the Evidence Act. It is his assertion that pleadings without evidence are mere allegations. He made reference to Kitale Misc. Application No. 26 of 2020, Lydia Bunyali v Medical Officer of Health Trans Nzoia County & Another (2021) KEHC 3591 KLR, Eliud Maina Mwangi v Margaret Wanjiru Gachangi (2013) eKLR.
15. On whether the suit property was acquired jointly and therefore qualifies to be matrimonial property, it is submitted that the suit property does not amount to matrimonial property as provided and defined under Section 6 of the Matrimonial Property Act because at the time of execution of the agreement, the applicant was not married to the defendant. Further, no evidence was tendered to show that the applicant was living, tilling, penning cows or raising a family with the defendant. He submits that no customary trust exists as stipulated under Section 28 of the Land Registration Act because there exists no marriage between the applicant and the defendant. Further, that the applicant has not shown what monetary or non monetary contribution she made toward acquisition of the suit property.
16. On whether the applicant has an overriding interest over the suit property by dint of spousal consent, it is submitted that spousal consent was not a requirement under the law at the time the suit property was purchased on 3rd March, 2012. It is trite law that the Law does not apply retrospectively. He relied on the cases of Moses Kibiego Yator v Eco Bank Kenya Limited Eldoret E&L No. 426 OF 2013 (2014) KEELC 449 (KLR), Rose Chepkirui Mibei v Jared Mokua Nyariki & 2 others Kericho E& L No. 24 of 2015 (2015) KEELC 81 (KLR) and Stella Mokeira Matara v Thaddues Mose Mangenya & another Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2014 (2016) KECA 746 (KLR).
17. He further submitted that if Section 28 of the Land Registration Act is to apply retrospectively, the plaintiff will be disinherited of his rights to own property as per Article 40 of the Constitution.
18. Finally, he urged the court to dismiss the application with costs to the plaintiff as the applicant had failed to furnish evidence to support her application.
Analysis and Determination
19. I have carefully considered the application, the response thereto and submissions filed by the respective parties. I find the sole issue for the court’s determination to be whether the application is merited.
20. In the case of Kamua v Kamau & Another; Kihungi [2024] KEELC 7215 (KLR) Kemei J stated;
“The Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition at page 1232 defines an interested party as a party who has a recognizable stake (and therefore standing) in the matter.
9.Whereas the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 is silent on the concept of “Interested Party", Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) provides that; “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.”
10.Additionally Rule 7 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights & Fundamental Freedoms) Practice & Procedure Rules 2013 provides that an interested party can apply to be enjoined or the Court can move suo moto and enjoin a party to proceedings before it. Rule 2 thereof defines an interested party as a person or entity that has an identifiable stake or legal interest or duty in the proceedings before the Court but is not a party to the proceedings or may not be directly involved in the litigation.
11.The principles for joinder of an Interested Party in a suit are now well settled. The Supreme Court in the case of Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another Vs. Republic & 5 Others as consolidated with 16 of 2013; [2016] eKLR which set down the principles of joinder that; “(37) From the foregoing legal provisions, and from the case law, the following elements emerge as applicable where a party seeks to be enjoined in proceedings as an interested party: 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: a.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. b. 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. c. 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 these submissions are not merely a replication of what the other parties will be making before the Court.”
12.Earlier on the apex Court in the case of Communications Commission of Kenya & 4 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 7 Others [2014] eKLR affirmed that; “(22) In determining whether the applicant should be admitted into these proceedings as an Interested Party we are guided by this Court’s Ruling in the Mumo Matemo case where the Court (at paragraphs 14 and 18) held:“[An] interested party is 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 affected 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…”(23)Similarly, in the case of Meme v. Republic, [2004] 1 EA 124, the High Court observed that a party could be enjoined in a matter for the reasons that:“(i)Joinder of a person because his presence will result in the complete settlement of all the questions involved in the proceedings;(ii)joinder to provide protection for the rights of a party who would otherwise be adversely affected in law;(iii)joinder to prevent a likely course of proliferated litigation.”
21. In the case of DCK v GKM; RNM (Interested Party) [2020] KEHC 7339 (KLR), the court quoted, “Gituanja v Gitnja [1983] KLR 575, where the Court of Appeal held that the existence of a customary marriage is a matter of fact which must be proved by evidence. The court further quoted Hottensia Wanjiku Yawe v The Public Trustee CA 13 of 1976, where Kwach J. set out three important principles regarding proof of customary marriage. These are:
i) The onus of proving customary law marriage is generally on the party who claims it;
ii) The standard of proof is the usual one for a civil action namely one on a balance of probabilities;
iii) Evidence as to the formalities required a customary law marriage must be proved to that evidential standard.
22. The intended interested party’s case is that she is the wife/spouse of the defendant and that the suit property is matrimonial property having been purchased during the marriage. From the green card of Lembus/Kabimoi 160, the defendant was registered as proprietor of the suit property on 8th January, 1987 and issued with a title deed on 26th March, 1990. No evidence has been availed to demonstrate that at the time the suit property was acquired in 1987, the applicant and the defendant were married; that the suit property is family land or that she has an overriding interest over it. The applicant has also not shown what contribution, monetary or non monetary, she made toward purchase of the suit property. Further, she has not controverted the plaintiff’s allegation that she and the defendant have never occupied the suit property and that it is the plaintiff who has been in occupation since 2012.
23. Applying the Law and the standard set out in the cases cited above, I am not persuaded that the intended interested party has on the face of it, demonstrated identifiable stake in the proceedings before this Court. These being the only grounds the application is hinged on, l find the application devoid of merit and I dismiss it with costs to the plaintiff
24. Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered virtually at Kabarnet this 18th day of September, 2025.
Ruling delivered virtually in the presence of all:-
Mr. Masinde holding brief for Mr. Kipsamo for the plaintiff
Mr. Sirma holding brief for Mr. Kipkenei for the Defendant
Court Assistant: Ian
'
1. The application dated 28th April 2025 expressed under Section 1, 1A, 1B, 3, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 1 rule 10 (2) of the Civil procedure rules and Section 93 of the Land Registration Act, seeks an order that the applicant be enjoined as an interested party in this suit.
2. The application is premised on the grounds on its face and supported by the affidavit of Agnes Kabon Mongo sworn on 28th April, 2025. She deposes that she is the spouse to the defendant and therefore has a life interest in Lembus/Kabimoi/ 160 (here after referred to as the suit property); that the sale is illegal ab-initio because she was not consulted prior to the sale of the suit property and did not give spousal consent to validate the sale; that the suit property is family land and she did not benefit from the proceeds of the sale. She prays that she be enjoined in the suit as an interested party so that her case can be heard alongside the cases for the plaintiff and the defendant.
3. The application is opposed vide the replying affidavit of Clifford Kipkorir Kogei, the plaintiff herein, sworn on 15th May, 2025. He deposes that the application is fatally defective, frivolous, an abuse of the court process and meant to delay the case; that the applicant who is a stranger to him, has not availed any evidence showing that she is a wife/ spouse to the defendant; that the suit property is family land; that she has an overriding interest over the suit property and/or how she bought the land with the defendant for the benefit of the children. He avers that the defendant and the applicant have never resided in the suit property and that he took possession in 2012 and has been in exclusive occupation to date.
4. He avers that at the time of execution of the sale agreement on 3rd March 2012, spousal consent was not a requirement as the Land Act 2012 and the Land Registration Act 2012 had not been enacted.
5. Pursuant to the directions given on 11th June 2025, the application was disposed of by way of written submissions.
SUBMISSIONS
Intended interested party/applicant’s submissions.
6. In her submissions dated 3rd July, 2025, the applicant identified seven issues for determination. These are; -
i) Whether the application is vexatious, frivolous or abuse of the court process?
ii) Whether any proof exists that the applicant is a spouse to the defendant/respondent?
iii) Whether the property (suit property) is a family property as such the applicant has overriding interest?
iv) Whether the plaintiff/respondent herein ever took active possession of the said suit property?
v) Whether the spousal consent required pursuant to Section 93 of Land Registration Act is retrospective in this subject matter?
vi) Whether the subject matter, i.e. the land referenced herein was bought by the applicant and the defendant herein for the benefit of their children.
vii) Whether the application by the applicant herein is merited?
7. On whether the application is vexatious, frivolous or an abuse of the court process, it is submitted that the application is not vexatious, frivolous or an abuse of the court process because for an application to be considered as such, it must satisfy the criteria that it raises no triable issues of law, is a prolife rage of judicial time and is not anchored in law. In support of what constitutes a frivolous and vexatious suit, the applicant relied on the cases of Misc Civil Suit El63 of 2021 Hon A.G vs David Oscar Qwako, eKLR & Samuel Kahiu v/s Jacinta Akinyi, Assistant County Commissioner Loodo Kilani Ward/Division & Another (2018) eKLR
8. On whether there is proof that the applicant is a spouse to the defendant/respondent, it is submitted that the applicant is a wife in a monogamous relationship with the defendant which was consummated through traditional Tugen customary rites and they have 10 children; that the land was registered in trust for the family in the name of the defendant as evidenced by the supporting affidavit of the applicant sworn on 28th April, 2025.
9. On whether the suit property is family property and as such, the applicant has an overriding interest, it is submitted that the suit property is family property having been acquired during subsistence of their marriage. She relied on the cases of Mburu vs Wainaina (Civil Appeal 143 of 2019) (2025) and Isack M Inanga Kiebia v/s Isaya Theuri M Lintary & Another (2018) eKLR.
10. On whether the spousal consent required pursuant to Section 93 of Land Registration Act is retrospective in this subject matter, it is submitted that whilst it’s true that the plaintiff purchased the land two months before adoption of the Land Registration Act, 2012, which has its underpinning from the Constitution of Kenya of 2010, the Constitution cannot be subjected to the principles of statutory interpretation that prohibit retrospectivity or not. Therefore, the argument by the appellant that Article 47 of the Constitution cannot operate retrospectively, is not an absolute position and does not prevent courts from applying provisions of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 when developing the law or interpreting statues with respect to actions or omissions that occurred before the enactment of the Constitution. They relied on the decisions in Samuel Kamau Macharia, the official receiver, Madhupaper International Ltd v. KCB Limited, Kenya Commercial Finance Co Ltd and Kenya National Capital Ltd, Civil Appeal 73 of 2020 and Kenya Revenue Authority vs Bharat General Agency.
11. On whether the suit property was bought by the applicant and the defendant for the benefit of their children it is submitted that the applicant acquired the suit property together with the defendant in trust for their children.
12. On whether the application by the applicant is merited, it is submitted that application is anchored on the law by virtue of Article 68 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 which enshrines protection of matrimonial property, the Land Registration Act Section 93 and Civil Procedure Rules which allow the applicant a right for audience before the court at any stage before judgment. As such, any interested party can be enjoined in a suit. They relied on the case of Faith Muthomi Kamau vs Paul Kamau and another in Para. 11 referencing Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another vs Republic & 5 others SCOK Petition No. 15 as consolidated with No. 16 of 2013. which set out requirements for a successful application for joinder as an interested party.
Plaintiff/Respondent’s written submissions.
13. In his submissions dated 8th July 2025, the plaintiff identified the following as the issues for determination;
i) Whether the interested party was the defendant’s wife at the material time of execution of the sale agreement dated 3rd March, 2012.
ii) Whether the suit land was acquired jointly and therefore qualifies to be matrimonial property.
iii) Whether the interested party has an overriding interest over the suit property by dint of spousal consent.
14. On whether the interested party was the defendant’s wife at the time of execution of the sale agreement, it is submitted that the applicant has failed to furnish sufficient evidence in support of her alleged marriage to the defendant/respondent. This is contrary to the provisions of Section 107 of the Evidence Act. It is his assertion that pleadings without evidence are mere allegations. He made reference to Kitale Misc. Application No. 26 of 2020, Lydia Bunyali v Medical Officer of Health Trans Nzoia County & Another (2021) KEHC 3591 KLR, Eliud Maina Mwangi v Margaret Wanjiru Gachangi (2013) eKLR.
15. On whether the suit property was acquired jointly and therefore qualifies to be matrimonial property, it is submitted that the suit property does not amount to matrimonial property as provided and defined under Section 6 of the Matrimonial Property Act because at the time of execution of the agreement, the applicant was not married to the defendant. Further, no evidence was tendered to show that the applicant was living, tilling, penning cows or raising a family with the defendant. He submits that no customary trust exists as stipulated under Section 28 of the Land Registration Act because there exists no marriage between the applicant and the defendant. Further, that the applicant has not shown what monetary or non monetary contribution she made toward acquisition of the suit property.
16. On whether the applicant has an overriding interest over the suit property by dint of spousal consent, it is submitted that spousal consent was not a requirement under the law at the time the suit property was purchased on 3rd March, 2012. It is trite law that the Law does not apply retrospectively. He relied on the cases of Moses Kibiego Yator v Eco Bank Kenya Limited Eldoret E&L No. 426 OF 2013 (2014) KEELC 449 (KLR), Rose Chepkirui Mibei v Jared Mokua Nyariki & 2 others Kericho E& L No. 24 of 2015 (2015) KEELC 81 (KLR) and Stella Mokeira Matara v Thaddues Mose Mangenya & another Civil Appeal No. 63 of 2014 (2016) KECA 746 (KLR).
17. He further submitted that if Section 28 of the Land Registration Act is to apply retrospectively, the plaintiff will be disinherited of his rights to own property as per Article 40 of the Constitution.
18. Finally, he urged the court to dismiss the application with costs to the plaintiff as the applicant had failed to furnish evidence to support her application.
Analysis and Determination
19. I have carefully considered the application, the response thereto and submissions filed by the respective parties. I find the sole issue for the court’s determination to be whether the application is merited.
20. In the case of Kamua v Kamau & Another; Kihungi [2024] KEELC 7215 (KLR) Kemei J stated;
“The Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition at page 1232 defines an interested party as a party who has a recognizable stake (and therefore standing) in the matter.
9.Whereas the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 is silent on the concept of “Interested Party", Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) provides that; “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.”
10.Additionally Rule 7 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights & Fundamental Freedoms) Practice & Procedure Rules 2013 provides that an interested party can apply to be enjoined or the Court can move suo moto and enjoin a party to proceedings before it. Rule 2 thereof defines an interested party as a person or entity that has an identifiable stake or legal interest or duty in the proceedings before the Court but is not a party to the proceedings or may not be directly involved in the litigation.
11.The principles for joinder of an Interested Party in a suit are now well settled. The Supreme Court in the case of Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another Vs. Republic & 5 Others as consolidated with 16 of 2013; [2016] eKLR which set down the principles of joinder that; “(37) From the foregoing legal provisions, and from the case law, the following elements emerge as applicable where a party seeks to be enjoined in proceedings as an interested party: 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: a.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. b. 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. c. 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 these submissions are not merely a replication of what the other parties will be making before the Court.”
12.Earlier on the apex Court in the case of Communications Commission of Kenya & 4 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 7 Others [2014] eKLR affirmed that; “(22) In determining whether the applicant should be admitted into these proceedings as an Interested Party we are guided by this Court’s Ruling in the Mumo Matemo case where the Court (at paragraphs 14 and 18) held:“[An] interested party is 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 affected 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…”(23)Similarly, in the case of Meme v. Republic, [2004] 1 EA 124, the High Court observed that a party could be enjoined in a matter for the reasons that:“(i)Joinder of a person because his presence will result in the complete settlement of all the questions involved in the proceedings;(ii)joinder to provide protection for the rights of a party who would otherwise be adversely affected in law;(iii)joinder to prevent a likely course of proliferated litigation.”
21. In the case of DCK v GKM; RNM (Interested Party) [2020] KEHC 7339 (KLR), the court quoted, “Gituanja v Gitnja [1983] KLR 575, where the Court of Appeal held that the existence of a customary marriage is a matter of fact which must be proved by evidence. The court further quoted Hottensia Wanjiku Yawe v The Public Trustee CA 13 of 1976, where Kwach J. set out three important principles regarding proof of customary marriage. These are:
i) The onus of proving customary law marriage is generally on the party who claims it;
ii) The standard of proof is the usual one for a civil action namely one on a balance of probabilities;
iii) Evidence as to the formalities required a customary law marriage must be proved to that evidential standard.
22. The intended interested party’s case is that she is the wife/spouse of the defendant and that the suit property is matrimonial property having been purchased during the marriage. From the green card of Lembus/Kabimoi 160, the defendant was registered as proprietor of the suit property on 8th January, 1987 and issued with a title deed on 26th March, 1990. No evidence has been availed to demonstrate that at the time the suit property was acquired in 1987, the applicant and the defendant were married; that the suit property is family land or that she has an overriding interest over it. The applicant has also not shown what contribution, monetary or non monetary, she made toward purchase of the suit property. Further, she has not controverted the plaintiff’s allegation that she and the defendant have never occupied the suit property and that it is the plaintiff who has been in occupation since 2012.
23. Applying the Law and the standard set out in the cases cited above, I am not persuaded that the intended interested party has on the face of it, demonstrated identifiable stake in the proceedings before this Court. These being the only grounds the application is hinged on, l find the application devoid of merit and I dismiss it with costs to the plaintiff
24. Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered virtually at Kabarnet this 18th day of September, 2025.
Ruling delivered virtually in the presence of all:-
Mr. Masinde holding brief for Mr. Kipsamo for the plaintiff
Mr. Sirma holding brief for Mr. Kipkenei for the Defendant
Court Assistant: Ian
'