1. The matter for determination is the Intended 2nd Interested Party’s (Majimoto Group Ranch) Application dated 9th October 2025, wherein the Applicant have sought for orders:
I. That leave be granted to the Applicant (Majimoto Group Ranch) to be joined in the Petition as the 2nd Interested Party;
II. That there be no Orders as to costs of this application;
2. The Application is premised upon the grounds set out on the face of the Application, and upon the Supporting Affidavit of Twala Manki and on such other grounds. These grounds are; that the suit property CISMARA/MAJIMOTO/2766, is a resultant subdivision of the property known as CISMARA/MAJIMOTO/8, which is now subdivided , but was initially registered in favour of Majimoto Group Ranch; that the Petitioners herein who are Members of Ilanyuak Self-help Group, allegedly received an interest in land over the suit property on allocation from Majimoto Group Ranch, which was later subdivided and allocated to its members; that Majimoto Group Ranch as the original owner of the suit property , according to its records duly designated the said property for public purpose to Ngoswani Mixed Secondary School; further that the proposed 2nd Interested Party is conversant with the history of the suit property as enumerated in the Green Card and is in a position to aid the court on the allocation process upon subdivision of the mother title –CISMARC/MAJIMOTO/8.
3. Further that the records held by the Maji Moto Group Ranch( Applicant) will aid the court in the conclusive determination of all facts and issues in this Petition; that unless the Applicant is joined in this Petition to produce its records, the Orders sought by the Petitioners/Respondents are likely to have adverse effects on the allocation as per the Members Register, and the Area List of this Group Ranch.
4. Further, that the intended Interested Party was a party in Narok ELC Petition No. 268 of 2017, wherein the issue of irregular allocation of public land to private individuals was litigated, and which culminated in a Judgment of the Court dated 8th July 2022; that it is imperative for the proposed 2nd Interested Party to be joined in the suit to put across its case, and appraise the Court on the implementation of the said Judgment in Narok ELC Petition No. 268 of 2017.
5. The Application is further supported by the Affidavit of Twala Manki, the Chairperson of the said Majimoto Group Ranch, who averred that he is conversant with the matter herein. He reiterated most of the contents of the Grounds in support of the Application, and urged the court to allow the instant application in the interest of justice.
6. The Application is opposed by the Petitioners/Respondents through the annexed Affidavit of Joseph Ole Taek, the Chairperson of Ilanyuak Ngoswani Self-help Group. He denied that the suit land CISMARA/MAJIMOTO/2766, was ever subject of any judicial determination or adjudication, and contended that Ngoswani Muxed Secondary School ,was never identified as one of the alleged public institutions in the named Judgment of the Court.
7. He further averred that the Petitioners’ Organization allocated parcels of land for public utility purposes – Ngoswani Community Resources Centre, included and not the Intended Interested Party. The deponent further averred that the Maji Moto Group Ranch was dissolved both in fact and by operation of law, and the land in question was allocated to respective members, Ilanyuak Ngoswani Self Help Group, being one of them, and the allegation that the suit land was allocated to Ngoswani Mixed Secondary School in 2021, was false and fallacious.
8. The Application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Applicant, Intended 2nd Interested Party filed its written submission dated 20th March 2026, through Oira Bosire & Company Advocates, and submitted that the joinder of an Interested Party is provided for under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, which provides that; to enable the court to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in a suit, the Court can allow joinder of any party at any stage, Interested Parties included.
9. It was further submitted that the said rule confers upon the court the discretionary power to include persons whose presence is vital for the effective and comprehensive adjudication of the issues in the suit. The Applicant (Intended 2nd Interested Party) relied on the definition of Interested Party as defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th Edition which defines it as “A party who has a recognized stake and therefore standi in the matter.
10. Reliance was sought in the case of Communication Commission of Kenya vs Royal Media Services Ltd & 9 Others (2014) eKLR, wherein the Supreme Court of Kenya held:
“An interested party is one who has a stake in the proceedings, though he/she was not a party to the cause ab initio. He/she is one who will be affected by the decision of the court when it is made, either way a person feels that his interest will not be adjudicated unless he or she himself/herself appears in the proceedings and champions his standing.”
11. Further reliance was sought in the case of Francis Karioki Muruateteu & Another vs Republic & 5 others (2016) eKLR, where the Supreme Court of Kenya also set out guidance on the requirements of successful applications for joinder of an Interested Party where the court held:
“An Applicant must show a proximate interest, its prejudice to be suffered in the case of non-joinder and set out the case it intends to make before the court.”
12. To confirm that it has an identifiable stake, the Applicant submitted that the case before the court is one of competing claims of ownership of land parcel known as CISMARA/MAJIMOTO/2766, between the Petitioners and the Respondents both of whom alleged that they hold the Certificate of Title in their names over the suit property. Further that the suit property emanated from the subdivision of CISMARA/MAJIMOTO/8, which land belonged to Majimoto Group Ranch, the Applicant herein.
13. The Applicant argued that what is in issue herein is who became the subsequent owner of the suit property after the successful subdivision of the Maji Moto Group Ranch land. Further reliance was sought in the case of Sikor Estate Limited & 5 others vs Agricultural Development Corporation & Another (2015) eKLR where the court held as follows:
“In my view, for one to convince the court that he/she needs to be joined to the suit as an Interested Party, such a person must demonstrate that it is necessary that he/she be joined in the suit, so that the court may settle all questions involved in the matter. It is not enough for one to merely show that he/she has a cursory interest in the subject matter of litigation. Litigation invariably affects many people. A judgment or order does not only affect the litigants in the matter. It does have ramification for others as well and one may argue that these others have an interest in litigation. That is a fair argument, but a mere interest, without demonstration that the presence of such a party will assist in the settlement of the questions involved in the suit, it is not enough to entitle one be enjoined in the suit such as Interested Party.”
14. The Applicant further argued that it has clearly demonstrated to this court that it is a necessary party, and its presence is necessary to enable the Court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon, and settle all questions involved in the suit; which is a question of ownership of the suit property.
15. The Petitioners/Respondents filed their written submissions dated 20th April 2026, in opposition to the proposed 2nd Interest Party’s Application through G. Munyua Waiyaki& Company Advocates. The Petitioners/Respondents identified the issues for determination as:
1). Whether Majimoto Group Ranch has locus to sustain legal proceedings.
2). Whether Majimoto Group Ranch has met the legal threshold to be joined as an interested party.
3). Whether it is in the best interest to join Majimoto Group Ranch.
16. On the first issue, the Petitioners/Respondents submitted that Majimoto Group Ranch was dissolved upon its application to dissolve, and a Consent for such dissolution was granted by the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement, through the Letter addressed to the Chairman. This was in accordance with Section 13 of the Land (Group) Representative Act CAP 287 (Now repealed).
17. Further, that on 22nd March 2012, the Ololulunga Land Control Board granted the requisite Consent to transfer the subdivisions of Narok CISMARA/MAJIMOTO/8, into various subdivisions being land parcels Nos 11 to 2771, and therefore land parcel No. 8, ceased to exist. It was further submitted that save for the limited administrative purpose of signing documents necessary to complete subdivision, Majimoto Group Ranch stood dissolved as at 1st December 1995, and its corporate existence and legal personality were extinguished leaving no basis for subsequent litigation. That this position was confirmed through the Letter by the Director of the Land Adjudication vide a Certificate of Final Dissolution dated 29th January 2025.
18. Reliance was sought in the case of Free Pentecostal Fellowship in Kenya vs. Kenya Commercial Bank HCC No. 5116 of 1992, where the court stated:
“The position in law is that a suit by or against unincorporated bodies of persons must be brought in the names of, or against all the members of the body, where there are numerous members, the suit may be instituted by or against one or more such persons in a representative capacity. In the instant matter, the suit was instituted in the name of a religious organization. It is not a body corporate… That being so, it lacked capacity to institute proceedings in its own name.”
19. Therefore, the Petitioners/Respondents argued that the proposed Interested Party having been dissolved lacks both locus standi and the legal capacity to sustain these proceedings. Further, it was submitted that Majimoto Group Ranch which stood dissolved by operation of law could not transition to Community Land as provided under Section 48 of the Community Land Act and Regulation 25 of the Community Land Regulations 2017, which is explicit that all Group Ranches were required to apply for extension within the statutory transition period, failing which they automatically ceased to exist. Since there is no evidence that Majimoto Group Ranch applied for extension or completed the conversion, then it stands dissolved and has no legal capacity to sue or be sued.
20. On whether the Applicant herein has met the legal threshold to be joined as an Interested Party, reliance was sought in the case of Francis Karioki Muruateteu & Another vs Republic & 5 others (2016) eklr, where the Supreme Court of Kenya set out the binding principles. The Petitioners/Respondents argued that the Applicant herein has not demonstrated any registered proprietary interest in the subject land, and has also not demonstrated any legal right capable of enforcement or any specific prejudice it stands to suffer beyond speculative claims.
21. On whether it is in the best interest to join Majimoto Group Ranch as an Interested Party herein, it was submitted that such joinder would introduce a non-existent entity into a Constitutional litigation, protract proceedings through speculative historical claims and prejudice the existing parties by enlarging the dispute without legal necessity.
22. Reliance was sought in the case of Communication Commission of Kenya vs Royal Media Services Ltd & 9 Others (Supra) wherein the court was emphatic that joinder must aid, not obstruct the just and expeditious determination of disputes. The Petitioners/Respondents urged the court to dismiss the instant Application with costs.
23. The Court has considered the pleadings herein and the rival written submissions and renders itself as follows; This is a Constitutional Petition which seeks various reliefs among them; a declaration that the Petitioners are the rightful owners and have the exclusive rights over the subdivision of CISMARA/MAJIMOTO/2766 (now cancelled) and are entitled to its unlimited rights of ownership, utility and use.
24. Simultaneously, the Petitioners/ Respondents filed a Notice of Motion Application seeking temporary injunction orders against the Respondents herein and the 1st Interested Party. Before the said Interlocutory Application could be canvassed and determined, the Proposed 2nd Interested Party filed the instant Application to be joined as a 2nd Interested Party in this Petition.
25. The Application is anchored under the provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, and all other enabling provisions of law. This being a Constitutional Petition, the governing rules are the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedural Rules 2013 commonly known as the Mutunga Rules. However, the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, are used in conjunction with the specific Constitutional Practice directions. See the case of Afro Mark Solutions Ltd vs Land Registrar Kwale, (PAGE 15) Transporters Ltd (Intended Interested Party) ELC Pet 15bof 2021 (2022) KEECC 4894 (KLR) (6th June 202) Ruling,
26. Though the Applicant herein did not state that the instant Application is brought under the Mutunga Rules, it is evident that the same is also anchored on ‘all other enabling provisions of law’, which means the Mutunga Rules are all included. It is evident that the Mutunga Rules provide the specific framework for Constitutional Petitions, but also the Civil Procedure Rules, specifically Order 1 Rule 10 ,provide guidance on who can join as a party in a suit – whose presence is necessary for complete and effectual adjudication of the matter.
27. Both the Mutunga Rules and the Civil Procedure Rules provide that a suit shall not be defeated by reason of misjoinder or non-joinder of parties, and the court is granted discretion to add necessary parties to a suit, to aid in complete and effectual settling of disputes and or controversies.
28. Under Rule 2 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedural Rules 2013, an Interested Party is defined:
“Interested Party means 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.”
29. Further, Rule 7(1) of the above Mutunga Rules 2013, provide that “a person may with the leave of court make an oral or written application to be joined as an Interested Party” and further Rule7(2), provides; a Court may on its own motion join an Interested Party in the proceedings”
30. Coupled with the provisions of Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, which provides that; a court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party…..join a party to a suit, where presence is necessary in order to aid the court to effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit as held in the case of Zephir Holdings Limited vs Mimosa Plantations Limited, Jeremiah Matagaro & Ezekiel Misango Mutisya [2014] Eklr, the proposed 2nd Interested Party filed the instant Application, now coming for determination.
31. The proposed 2nd Interested Party filed the instant Application, and alleged that the suit property in dispute emanated from the large CIS/MARA/MAJIMOTO/8, which was owned by the proposed 2nd Interested Party, which is in a better position to expound on the issues in controversy. Further, it alleged that it was a party in Narok ELC Petition no. 268 of 2017, where the court determined the issues of alleged allocation of some public utility parcels of land to private individuals, and that it is in a better position to elaborate on the progress of enforcement of the said Judgment.
32. However, the Petitioners/Respondents have argued that the Applicant/Proposed 2nd Interested Party has no locus standi to bring the instant Application since the said Applicant does not exist, and was dissolved upon acceptance of its application of dissolution and upon issuance of the Final Dissolution Certificate dated 29th January 2025.
33. Before delving into the merit of the instant Application, the court will first determine whether the applicant, Majimoto Group Ranch, is an entity with legal capacity, or whether having been dissolved, it has no locus standi, to appear before this court, in its corporate capacity.
34. Locus standi is the legal right or capacity of a person or an entity to bring a case before a court or to be heard in legal proceedings. This rule ensures that only those with legitimate interest or stake in a dispute can initiate a suit in court or be joined as a party. See the case of Law Society of Kenya vs Commissioner of Lands & 2 Others (Nakuru HCCC No. 464 of 2000) ,where the court held that:
“Locus standi signifies a right to be heard, a person must have sufficiency of interest to sustain his standing to sue in a court of law;”
35. From the pleadings herein, it is evident that the applicant, Majimoto Group Ranch was the initial owner of CIS/MARA/MAJIMOTO/8, which was subdivided way back between 1995 and 2012, and the subdivisions were allocated to various individuals and entities. The suit property is one of such subdivisions. Upon subdivision, and reallocation, the ensuing parcels of land became private properties, governed by the Registered Land Act, CAP 300, Laws of Kenya (now repealed) and/or the Land Registration Act 2012.
36. From the pleadings herein, it is evident that Majimoto Group Ranch has no basis for subsequent litigation, and this position was confirmed through the Letter by the Director of Land Adjudication and Settlement, vide a Certificate of Final Dissolution dated 29th January 2025.
37. The Petitioners/Respondents relied on the case of Free Pentecostal Fellowship in Kenya vs. Kenya Commercial Bank HCC No. 5116 of 1992, wherein the court stated:
“The position in law is that a suit by or against unincorporated bodies of persons must be brought in the names of, or against all the members of the body, where there are numerous members, the suit may be instituted by or against one or more such persons in a representative capacity. In the instant matter, the suit was instituted in the name of a religious organization. It is not a body corporate… That being so, it lacked capacity to institute proceedings in its own name.”
38. Majimoto Group Ranch applied to the Land Adjudication Officer for dissolution in 1995, and the said Application was allowed. The said Application for dissolution was in accordance with Section 13 of the repealed Land (Group Representatives) Act, Cap 287 Laws of Kenya. From the provision of the said Act (now repealed), once a Group Ranch is wound up, and a Certificate of Final Dissolution by the Ministry of Lands is issues, its legal personality is permanently extinguished, and it becomes a non-existent entity.
39. Therefore, with such s dissolution, the Maji Moto Group Ranch completely lost its capacity to bring any suit Court in its Corporate capacity, and thus it has no locus standi, or standing to join this suit as such. It cannot seek to be joined in a suit in its former name, but maybe it could have sought to be joined through individuals suing as former officials of Majimoto Group Ranch. See the case of Free Pentecostal Fellowship in Kenya vs. Kenya Commercial Bank HCC No. 5116 of 1992.
40. This Court has seen the Certificate of Final Dissolution of Majimoto Group Ranch, dated 29th January 2025, and given that the consent to dissolve the said Group Ranch was issued on 1st December 1995, vide the above Certificate, then the Group Ranch was finally dissolved.
41. Having been finally dissolved, Majimoto Group Ranch, the Applicant herein cannot legally sue or be sued in its corporate name, and therefore this court concurs with the Petitioners/Respondents’ submissions that the Applicant – Intended 2nd Interested Party, has no capacity or locus standi to join in this suit as an Interested Party.
42. For the above reasons, this court finds and holds that the Application herein dated 9th October 2025, by the Proposed 2nd Interested Party is not merited.
43. Consequently, the court proceeds to dismiss the said Application entirely with costs to the Petitioners/Respondents.
It is so ordered.
Dated, Signed and Delivered virtually this 21st day of May 2026
L. Gacheru
Judge.
Delivered online in the presence of:
Elijah Meyoki – Court Assistant
Mr. Munyua for the Petitioners/Respondents
Ms. Moturi for the Respondents
N/A for the 1st Interested Party.
Mr. Bosire for the Proposed 2nd Interested Party
L. Gacheru
21st May 2026.