I. Introduction
1. This Honourable Court is called upon to determine the Notice of Motion application dated 15 th December, 2025 filed by Mike Nyaga Njeru , the Intended Interested Party/Applicant herein, brought under the provisions of Articles 40, 50(1), 60(1), and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, together with Sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21, Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. The Applicant sought, inter alia, orders for joinder as an interested party and leave to file any necessary documents, responses, or affidavits in this matter.
2. Equally before the Court are the Replying Affidavit sworn on 4 th February, 2026 and the Written Submissions dated 9 th March, 2026 filed by the Plaintiff, Jane Wamuchii Muiruri (Legal Administratrix of the Estate of the late Patrick Paul Muiruri), opposing the application on grounds that it is misconceived, legally untenable, procedurally incompetent, and an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court. The Plaintiff asserts that the Intended Interested Party is a stranger to the dispute, lacks locus standi, and seeks to reopen a boundary determination that has already been conclusively settled under the Land Registration Act.
3. In addition, the Court is seized of the Supporting Affidavit sworn on 15 th December, 2025 by Mike Nyaga Njeru, annexing a copy of the title deed to parcel known as LR. No. Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1170 and the Survey Report dated 19 th June, 2025, wherein the Applicant contends that the recommendations therein materially affect his parcel due to interlocking boundaries, thereby implicating his constitutional right to property under Article 40.
4. Upon service of the Intended Interested Party’s application, the Plaintiff opposed the same through the said Replying Affidavit and submissions, while the Intended Interested Party relied on his Supporting Affidavit and submissions filed on record, asserting that his participation is necessary to protect his proprietary interests and to assist the Court in effectually adjudicating upon all issues concerning the affected parcels.
5. This ruling therefore addresses the merits of the Intended Interested Party’s motion for joinder, the Replying Affidavit filed by the Plaintiff, and the rival submissions of both parties, guided by the applicable statutory provisions and judicial precedents.
II. The Intended Interested Party’s case
6. The Intended Interested Party’s sought the following orders: -
a. The applicant herein MIKE NYAGA NJERU be granted leave to join this suit as an interested party.
b. Upon such joinder, the Interested Party be granted leave to file any necessary documents, responses or affidavits in this matter.
c. Costs of this application be in the course.
7. The application by the Applicants was premised on the grounds, facts and testimony on the face of the application and further supported by the 11 paragraphed annexed affidavit of MIKE NYAGA NJERU, the Intended Interested Party herein. The Affiant averred as follows that:-
i. He was the legal and registered owner of land parcel Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1170. Annexed in the affidavit and marked as “MNN – 1” was a copy of the title deed.
ii. He had perused and reviewed the Survey Report and the Boundary Determination Report dated 19 th June, 2025, emanating from the County Land Registrar, Kwale, titled “Boundary Dispute between Galu Kinondo/568, 1855 and 1854”, which was already filed in the suit. Annexed in the affidavit and marked as “MNN – 2” was a copy of the survey report.
iii. Although the report expressly dealt with parcels 568, 1854 and 1855, the determinations, realignments, and survey recommendations therein materially affected the spatial configuration of the neighbouring parcels including his parcel 1170, due to the interlocking nature of boundaries in the Galu/Kinondo area.
iv. The implementation of the said survey recommendations might directly impact the extent, boundary position, acreage, or peaceful occupation of his property, hence affecting his constitutional right to property under Article 40 of the Constitution.
v. He was not notified, invited, or involved in the boundary proceedings, yet the recommendations had implications on his parcel and on neighbouring cadastral boundaries that linked with parcel 1170.
vi. His participation in the suit was necessary to protect his proprietary interests and to assist the Court in fully understanding the boundary context, survey history, and the implications of the report, in line with the principles of natural justice and fair administrative action under the provision of Article 47 of the Constitution.
vii. Unless he was joined as an Interested Party, the Court’s decision might have been rendered without the input of a directly affected proprietor, thereby prejudicing his rights.
viii. It was in the interests of justice that the Honourable Court allowed the application.
ix. There would have been no prejudice caused to any party if he were joined as a party therein.
x. All that was deponed to therein was true to the best of his knowledge and belief, save for matters of information, the sources whereof had been disclosed.
III. The Replying Affidavit
8. The Respondent raised a 13 paragraphed Replying Affidavit sworn on on 4 th February, 2026 sworn by JANE WAMUCHI MUIRURI, the Plaintiff/Respondent herein who opposed the Application and stated as follows:-
a) The Intended Interested Party’s application dated 15 th December, 2025 together with the affidavit in support thereof had been read over and explained to the Affiant, and she had independently read, analysed and considered the same and he verily deposed that it was vexatious, legally untenable, procedurally incompetent and constituted a gross and fragrant abuse of the due process of this Honourable Court.
b) The substratum of the suit was narrow, specific, and incontrovertibly confined to a boundary dispute between herself and the Defendant, arising solely from the Defendant’s unlawful, wilful, and unjustified trespass and encroachment onto her parcel of land.
c) Pursuant to clear and unequivocal directions of the Honourable Court, a statutory boundary determination exercise had been conducted by the Land Registrar after due notice to, and with the express invitation of, all adjoining landowners and neighbours, and in the presence and with the full participation of the disputing parties therein, culminating in a Land Registrar’s Report reached by consent and without protest, objection, or reservation from any quarter.
d) The said Land Registrar’s Report had been lawfully prepared, formally lodged, and duly filed before the Honourable Court, where it formed part of the permanent judicial record and carried full legal force and effect.
e) The boundary, having been conclusively determined, fixed, and authenticated by the Land Registrar in strict compliance with the provision of Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act, stood finally settled, extinguished, and spent, and could only have been impeached through the narrow and specific avenues expressly provided by statute, and certainly not through collateral, opportunistic, and legally impermissible proceedings such as the present application.
f) The Intended Interested Party was a complete stranger to the dispute forming the subject matter of the suit, was never a disputant in the boundary determination process, asserted no claim at the material time, and belatedly sought to intrude into concluded proceedings without locus standi, factual basis, or legal footing.
g) The Intended Interested Party demonstrably lacked any direct, proximate, identifiable, or legally cognizable interest in the subject matter of the suit and fell spectacularly short of the settled legal threshold for joinder as an interested party.
h) The Honourable Court would have suffered no prejudice whatsoever by excluding the Intended Interested Party from the proceedings, whereas granting the application would only have served to derail, delay, and contaminate a matter that had already undergone and conclusively exhausted the requisite statutory process.
i) The application for joinder was a transparent afterthought, a desperate stratagem, and a thinly veiled attempt to unlawfully resurrect, re ‑ litigate, and sabotage a concluded statutory determination through the back door, in a manner wholly unknown to law and inimical to the principles of finality and judicial economy.
j) Permitting such an application would have set a dangerous precedent, rewarded indolence and mischief, and amounted to an open endorsement of abuse of the court process.
k) It was therefore just, proper, and imperative that the Intended Interested Party’s application for joinder be dismissed in its entirety with punitive costs to her.
l) All that was deponed to therein was true to the best of her knowledge, information, and belief.
IV. Submissions
9. While all the parties were present in Court, they were directed to have the Notice of Motion application dated 15 th December, 2025, and the Replying Affidavit sworn on 4 th February, 2026, be disposed of by way of written submissions. All the parties duly complied with the Court’s directions. Pursuant thereto, the parties obliged, and a ruling date was accordingly reserved for the 21 st September, 2026 by the Honourable Court.
A. The Written Submissions by the Intended Interested Party
10. The Intended Interested Party through the Law firm of Messrs. Munga Kibanga & Co. Advocates filed their written submissions dated 9 th February, 2026. The Learned Counsel submitted that the intended interested party/applicant is the registered proprietor of land parcel Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1170, which parcel is neighbouring and directly affected by the boundary determination and survey recommendations arising from the dispute subject of this suit. Upon learning that the said survey recommendations extend to and affect his parcel, the applicant filed the present application seeking joinder to these proceedings as an interested party. The application is opposed through the Plaintiff's replying affidavit dated 4 th February, 2026, wherein the Plaintiff opposes the joinder in its entirety and prayed for the dismissal of the application.
11. The Learned Counsel relied on the sole issue for determination being whether the intended interested party had demonstrated a sufficient, direct, and identifiable stake in the proceedings to warrant joinder. The Plaintiff instituted this suit as the proprietor of land parcel Kwale/Galu Kinondo/568, alleging trespass by the 1 st Defendant, the proprietor of land parcels Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1854 and 1855. The plaintiff further sued the 2 nd defendant for allegedly failing to issue a report on the said boundary dispute, despite having conducted hearings on the matter. The 2 nd Defendant has since filed a survey report dated 18 th June, 2025, whose findings and recommendations the Plaintiff expressly accepts and endorses in her replying affidavit (at paragraph 5).
12. Notably, the said survey report recommends boundary realignments and confirmations not only in respect of parcels Kwale/Galu Kinondo/568, 1854 and 1855, but also in respect of other neighbouring parcels, including Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1170, which is owned by the intended interested party. In view of the foregoing, this Honourable Court cannot properly consider, adopt, or give effect to the recommendations of the said survey report without the participation of all proprietors whose parcels stand to be affected, including the intended interested party. Proceeding otherwise would expose the Court's eventual determination to challenge and inevitably result in a multiplicity of suits by affected proprietors, contrary to the principle of efficient and economical use of the scarce judicial resources.
13. The provision of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 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 person who ought to have been joined... 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.”
14. The Learned Counsel submitted that this Court could not effectually and completely determine the issues in dispute without the participation of the intended interested party, whose proprietary rights stand to be materially affected by the boundary adjustments recommended by the 2 nd Defendant. The Plaintiff could not approbate and reprobate: having expressly embraced the survey report and its recommendations, she cannot, in the same breath, oppose the participation of a proprietor whose land is directly affected by those very recommendations.
15. The Supreme Court in the case of:- “Communications Commission of Kenya and 4 Others – Versus - Royal Media Services Limited & 7 Others Petition No. 15 OF (2014) eKLR” pronounced itself on who an Interested Party is and held as follows:-
“In determining whether the applicant should be admitted into these proceedings as an interested party, we are guided by this Court's decision 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.”
16. According to the Learned Counsel it was not disputed that the Applicant was the registered owner of Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1170, a parcel situated within the same survey block and boundary matrix as parcels 568, 1854 and 1855, which are the subject of the impugned survey report. The survey report expressly recommends boundary realignments and confirmations which could not lawfully or procedurally be undertaken in the absence of the Applicant, who had demonstrated a direct, proximate, and identifiable interest, as opposed to a remote or speculative one. It was therefore in the interest of justice that the Applicant be joined to these proceedings in order to facilitate a holistic, fair, and conclusive determination of the boundary dispute and to forestall multiplicity of suits.
17. The Learned Counsel concluded that the Applicant had satisfied all the legal and jurisprudential thresholds for joinder as an interested party. His joinder will occasion no prejudice to any party but will greatly assist the Court in rendering a complete, fair, and enforceable determination of the issues in dispute. For the foregoing reasons, the intended interested party respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to allow the application dated 15 th December, 2025 as prayed.
B. The Written Submissions by the Plaintiff
18. The Plaintiff through the Law firm of Messrs. Stephen Njumbale & Company Advocates filed their written submissions dated 9 th March, 2026. Mr. Njumbale Advocate submitted that the submissions were filed on behalf of the Plaintiff in firm opposition to the Intended Interested Party's Application dated 15 th December, 2025, seeking leave to be joined in these proceedings as an Interested Party. The said application was misconceived, legally untenable, procedurally incompetent and an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court. The application represents a transparent attempt by a complete stranger to the dispute to intrude into proceedings whose subject matter neither concerns him nor threatens any legally recognizable interest of his. The Intended Interested Party seeks to insinuate himself into a dispute that was and remained, exclusively between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant notwithstanding the fact that the dispute giving rise to the suit has already undergone the statutory dispute resolution mechanism prescribed by law.
19. On the legal threshold for joinder of interested party. The Learned Counsel submitted that the principles governing joinder of interested parties were now firmly settled in Kenyan jurisprudence. A party seeking to be enjoined in proceedings must demonstrate a clearly identifiable, proximate and legally recognizable stake in the proceedings, and must further show that such interest would be prejudicially affected by the outcome of the case if the party is not joined.
20. To buttress on this legal position, he cited the case of:- “Olang – Versus - Nuaga & Others (Environment and Land Case 52 of 2019)[2026]KEELC 1202 (KLR)” the court reiterated the principles governing joinder of an interested party and cited with approval the decision of the Supreme Court in “Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another – Versus - Republic & 5 Others [2016] eKLR” , where the Court stated:
“From the foregoing legal provisions and case law, the following elements emerge as applicable where a party seeks to be joined in proceedings as an interested party:
(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 proximate enough, and not 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. The prejudice must be real and not remote.
(c) A party must set out the case or submissions it intends to make before the Court and demonstrate the relevance of those submissions. It must further be shown that such submissions will not merely replicate those of the existing parties.”
21. Therefore, according to the Learned Counsel, Joinder was not a procedural indulgence available to every curious bystander. It was a strictly regulated legal mechanism reserved only for those whose rights stood to be directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings. The Intended Interested Party in the present case fell spectacularly short of this threshold. The substratum of the present suit was a boundary dispute between the Plaintiff and the 1 st Defendant arising from the latter’s unlawful encroachment onto the Plaintiff's parcel of land. At no time whatsoever had the Intended Interested Party had any boundary dispute with the Plaintiff. Pursuant to the directions of this Honourable Court, the District Land Registrar, Kwale County, conducted a statutory boundary determination exercise in accordance with the provision of Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act.
22. The exercise was conducted after notice was issued to the relevant parties and neighbouring landowners, and culminated in a formal determination of the boundary between the Plaintiff and the 1 st Defendant. Upon completion of the exercise, the Land Registrar prepared a report which was duly filed before this Honourable Court and now forms part of the court record. By virtue of that determination, the boundary between the Plaintiff and the 1 st Defendant was lawfully, conclusively and authoritatively fixed. The Intended Interested Party was never a disputant in that process, nor did he assert any competing claim at the material time.
23. The Learned Counsel further submitted that once the Land Registrar’ undertook a boundary determination under the Land Registration Act, the determination may only be challenged through the statutory procedures provided by law. The law never permit parties to circumvent or re - open such determinations through collateral proceedings. This position was firmly articulated by the Court of Appeal in “Speaker of the National Assembly – Versus - Karume [1992] KLR” , where the Court held:
“Where there is a clear procedure for the redress of any particular grievance prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure should be strictly followed.”
24. Similarly, the Court of Appeal in “Geoffrey Muthinja & Another – Versus - Samuel Muguna Henry & 1756 Others [2015] eKLR” emphasized the doctrine of exhaustion in the following terms:
“It is imperative that where a dispute resolution mechanism exists outside courts, the same be exhausted before the jurisdiction of the courts is invoked. Courts ought to be the fora of last resort and not the first port of call.”
25. According to the Learned Counsel, Courts must therefore respect and uphold the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies. In the present matter, the statutory process was not merely invoked - it was fully undertaken and completed. The Land Registrar conducted the exercise, made the determination and filed the report before this Honourable Court. The statutory mandate entrusted to the Land Registrar by Parliament was therefore fully discharged.
26. The Learned Counsel submitted that it was particularly significant that the 1 st Defendant, who was the actual disputant in the boundary dispute, participated in the boundary determination exercise and accepted the outcome thereof. The party directly affected by the determination had not challenged the same through any legally prescribed avenue. It would therefore be legally incongruous and impermissible for the Intended Interested Party, who was never a disputant in the process, to seek to indirectly challenge or reopen that determination. The Intended Interested Party could not cry louder than the bereaved. To permit such conduct would be to sanction a procedural ambush upon a statutory determination that has already attained finality.
27. On the only issue remaining before Court were on eviction and costs. The Learned Counsel submitted that following the Land Registrar’s determination, the boundary dispute that formed the foundation of this suit has already been fully resolved. The proceedings had therefore progressed beyond the stage of boundary adjudication. The only matters now remaining for determination by this Honourable Court were consequential reliefs, namely:
a) Eviction of the 1 st Defendant from the Plaintiff's land; and
b) Costs of the suit.
28. These issues related exclusively to the conduct and occupation of the 1 st Defendant. They did not in any manner implicate or concern the Intended Interested Party. The Intended Interested Party had not demonstrated that:
a. any portion of his land formed part of the dispute;
b. his proprietary rights were threatened; or
c. the orders sought in the Plaint would affect him in any conceivable manner
29. According to the Learned Counsel it therefore followed that no final orders arising from this suit would interfere with the Intended Interested Party's land or rights.
30. On the Application was a transparent attempt to hijack the Plaintiff’s case. The Learned Counsel submitted that the Intended Interested Party’s application was nothing more than a belated and opportunistic stratagem aimed at intruding upon proceedings that have already progressed through the statutory dispute resolution framework. The application was an unmistakable attempt to hijack the Plaintiff's case and transform a narrow and straightforward dispute into an unnecessary and unwarranted controversy. Courts must remain vigilant against such attempts, particularly where joinder would only serve to delay proceedings, introduce’ collateral issues, and undermine the finality of statutory determinations.
31. In conclusion, the Learned Counsel submitted that the Intended Interested Party had failed - comprehensively and irredeemably - to demonstrate any direct, proximate or legally recognizable interest in the subject matter of this suit. The boundary dispute between the Plaintiff and the 1 st Defendant had already been lawfully determined by the Land Registrar in accordance with the Land Registration Act, and the report thereof has been duly filed before this Honourable Court. The statutory process had therefore been fully exhausted, and the party directly affected by the determination has accepted the outcome. The only issues now remaining before the Court concern eviction of the 1 st Defendant and costs, matters that do not implicate the Intended Interested Party in any manner. The application for joinder was therefore misconceived, unnecessary and a clear abuse of the process of this Honourable Court.
32. Hence, the Learned Counsel respectfully urged this Honourable Court to dismiss the Intended Interested Party's Application dated 15 th December, 2025 with costs.
V. Analysis and Determination
33. The Honourable Court carefully read and considered the Notice of Motion application dated 15 th December, 2025 filed by the Intended Interested Party, Mike Nyaga Njeru, the Replying Affidavit sworn on 4 th February, 2026 filed by the Plaintiff, Jane Wamuchii Muiruri, and the Written Submissions dated 9 th March, 2026 filed on behalf of the Plaintiff. The Court also considered the Supporting Affidavit sworn by Mike Nyaga Njeru, together with the annexures thereto, the objections raised by the Plaintiff, and the relevant statutory provisions and authorities cited the provision of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Statures.
34. In order to arrive at an informed decision, Equitable and reasonable decision, the Honourable Court framed the following four ( 4 ) issues for its determination:-
a. Whether the Applicant has demonstrated a sufficient, direct, and identifiable stake in the proceedings to warrant joinder as an Interested Party;
b. Whether the joinder of the Applicant is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit; and
c. Whether the Application is an abuse of the process of the Court, having regard to the alleged finality of the statutory boundary determination.
d. Who ought to bear the costs of the application
ISSUE No. a). Whether the Applicant has demonstrated a sufficient, direct, and identifiable stake in the proceedings to warrant joinder as an Interested Party;
35. Under this Sub – heading, the Honorable Court will be critically assessing the legal concept of joinder of parties. The power of the Court to order joinder of a party is founded upon the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, which provides as follows:-
“The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added.”
36. The provision is a broad and enabling one. It confers upon the Court a discretionary power, exercisable at any stage of the proceedings, to add a person whose presence before the Court is necessary to enable the Court to ‘effectually and completely’ adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. The discretion, however, is not to be exercised capriciously, but judicially and in accordance with settled principles.
37. The governing principles on joinder of an Interested Party have been deliberated on extensively by High Courts. They were authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court of “Kenya in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance – Versus - Mumo Matemo & 5 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 12 of 2013; [2014] eKLR” , where the Court defined an interested party in the following terms:
“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.”
38. The Supreme Court subsequently elaborated the applicable principles in “Francis Kariuki Muruatetu & Another – Versus - Republic & 5 Others ( Supra)” , where the Court held as follows:-
“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:
(a) One must move the Court by way of a formal application. Enjoinment is not as of right, but is at the discretion of the Court; hence, sufficient grounds must be laid before the Court, on the basis of the following elements:
(i) The personal interest or stake that the party has in the matter must be set out in the application. The interest must be clearly identifiable and must be proximate enough, to stand apart from anything that is merely peripheral.
(ii) The prejudice to be suffered by the intended interested party in case of non-joinder, must also be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court. It must also be clearly outlined and not something remote.
(iii) A party must set out the case and/or submissions it intends to make before the Court, and demonstrate the relevance of those submissions. It must also be demonstrated that such submissions are not merely a replication of what the other parties will be making before the Court.”
39. These principles were applied and affirmed by the Environment and Land Court in the case of:- “Olang – Versus - Nuaga & Others, Environment and Land Case No. 52 of 2019; [2026] KEELC 1202 (KLR)” , which reiterated that joinder is not a procedural indulgence available to every curious bystander, but a strictly reg
[...truncated]
1. This Honourable Court is called upon to determine the Notice of Motion application dated 15 th December, 2025 filed by Mike Nyaga Njeru , the Intended Interested Party/Applicant herein, brought under the provisions of Articles 40, 50(1), 60(1), and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, together with Sections 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21, Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. The Applicant sought, inter alia, orders for joinder as an interested party and leave to file any necessary documents, responses, or affidavits in this matter.
2. Equally before the Court are the Replying Affidavit sworn on 4 th February, 2026 and the Written Submissions dated 9 th March, 2026 filed by the Plaintiff, Jane Wamuchii Muiruri (Legal Administratrix of the Estate of the late Patrick Paul Muiruri), opposing the application on grounds that it is misconceived, legally untenable, procedurally incompetent, and an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court. The Plaintiff asserts that the Intended Interested Party is a stranger to the dispute, lacks locus standi, and seeks to reopen a boundary determination that has already been conclusively settled under the Land Registration Act.
3. In addition, the Court is seized of the Supporting Affidavit sworn on 15 th December, 2025 by Mike Nyaga Njeru, annexing a copy of the title deed to parcel known as LR. No. Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1170 and the Survey Report dated 19 th June, 2025, wherein the Applicant contends that the recommendations therein materially affect his parcel due to interlocking boundaries, thereby implicating his constitutional right to property under Article 40.
4. Upon service of the Intended Interested Party’s application, the Plaintiff opposed the same through the said Replying Affidavit and submissions, while the Intended Interested Party relied on his Supporting Affidavit and submissions filed on record, asserting that his participation is necessary to protect his proprietary interests and to assist the Court in effectually adjudicating upon all issues concerning the affected parcels.
5. This ruling therefore addresses the merits of the Intended Interested Party’s motion for joinder, the Replying Affidavit filed by the Plaintiff, and the rival submissions of both parties, guided by the applicable statutory provisions and judicial precedents.
II. The Intended Interested Party’s case
6. The Intended Interested Party’s sought the following orders: -
a. The applicant herein MIKE NYAGA NJERU be granted leave to join this suit as an interested party.
b. Upon such joinder, the Interested Party be granted leave to file any necessary documents, responses or affidavits in this matter.
c. Costs of this application be in the course.
7. The application by the Applicants was premised on the grounds, facts and testimony on the face of the application and further supported by the 11 paragraphed annexed affidavit of MIKE NYAGA NJERU, the Intended Interested Party herein. The Affiant averred as follows that:-
i. He was the legal and registered owner of land parcel Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1170. Annexed in the affidavit and marked as “MNN – 1” was a copy of the title deed.
ii. He had perused and reviewed the Survey Report and the Boundary Determination Report dated 19 th June, 2025, emanating from the County Land Registrar, Kwale, titled “Boundary Dispute between Galu Kinondo/568, 1855 and 1854”, which was already filed in the suit. Annexed in the affidavit and marked as “MNN – 2” was a copy of the survey report.
iii. Although the report expressly dealt with parcels 568, 1854 and 1855, the determinations, realignments, and survey recommendations therein materially affected the spatial configuration of the neighbouring parcels including his parcel 1170, due to the interlocking nature of boundaries in the Galu/Kinondo area.
iv. The implementation of the said survey recommendations might directly impact the extent, boundary position, acreage, or peaceful occupation of his property, hence affecting his constitutional right to property under Article 40 of the Constitution.
v. He was not notified, invited, or involved in the boundary proceedings, yet the recommendations had implications on his parcel and on neighbouring cadastral boundaries that linked with parcel 1170.
vi. His participation in the suit was necessary to protect his proprietary interests and to assist the Court in fully understanding the boundary context, survey history, and the implications of the report, in line with the principles of natural justice and fair administrative action under the provision of Article 47 of the Constitution.
vii. Unless he was joined as an Interested Party, the Court’s decision might have been rendered without the input of a directly affected proprietor, thereby prejudicing his rights.
viii. It was in the interests of justice that the Honourable Court allowed the application.
ix. There would have been no prejudice caused to any party if he were joined as a party therein.
x. All that was deponed to therein was true to the best of his knowledge and belief, save for matters of information, the sources whereof had been disclosed.
III. The Replying Affidavit
8. The Respondent raised a 13 paragraphed Replying Affidavit sworn on on 4 th February, 2026 sworn by JANE WAMUCHI MUIRURI, the Plaintiff/Respondent herein who opposed the Application and stated as follows:-
a) The Intended Interested Party’s application dated 15 th December, 2025 together with the affidavit in support thereof had been read over and explained to the Affiant, and she had independently read, analysed and considered the same and he verily deposed that it was vexatious, legally untenable, procedurally incompetent and constituted a gross and fragrant abuse of the due process of this Honourable Court.
b) The substratum of the suit was narrow, specific, and incontrovertibly confined to a boundary dispute between herself and the Defendant, arising solely from the Defendant’s unlawful, wilful, and unjustified trespass and encroachment onto her parcel of land.
c) Pursuant to clear and unequivocal directions of the Honourable Court, a statutory boundary determination exercise had been conducted by the Land Registrar after due notice to, and with the express invitation of, all adjoining landowners and neighbours, and in the presence and with the full participation of the disputing parties therein, culminating in a Land Registrar’s Report reached by consent and without protest, objection, or reservation from any quarter.
d) The said Land Registrar’s Report had been lawfully prepared, formally lodged, and duly filed before the Honourable Court, where it formed part of the permanent judicial record and carried full legal force and effect.
e) The boundary, having been conclusively determined, fixed, and authenticated by the Land Registrar in strict compliance with the provision of Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act, stood finally settled, extinguished, and spent, and could only have been impeached through the narrow and specific avenues expressly provided by statute, and certainly not through collateral, opportunistic, and legally impermissible proceedings such as the present application.
f) The Intended Interested Party was a complete stranger to the dispute forming the subject matter of the suit, was never a disputant in the boundary determination process, asserted no claim at the material time, and belatedly sought to intrude into concluded proceedings without locus standi, factual basis, or legal footing.
g) The Intended Interested Party demonstrably lacked any direct, proximate, identifiable, or legally cognizable interest in the subject matter of the suit and fell spectacularly short of the settled legal threshold for joinder as an interested party.
h) The Honourable Court would have suffered no prejudice whatsoever by excluding the Intended Interested Party from the proceedings, whereas granting the application would only have served to derail, delay, and contaminate a matter that had already undergone and conclusively exhausted the requisite statutory process.
i) The application for joinder was a transparent afterthought, a desperate stratagem, and a thinly veiled attempt to unlawfully resurrect, re ‑ litigate, and sabotage a concluded statutory determination through the back door, in a manner wholly unknown to law and inimical to the principles of finality and judicial economy.
j) Permitting such an application would have set a dangerous precedent, rewarded indolence and mischief, and amounted to an open endorsement of abuse of the court process.
k) It was therefore just, proper, and imperative that the Intended Interested Party’s application for joinder be dismissed in its entirety with punitive costs to her.
l) All that was deponed to therein was true to the best of her knowledge, information, and belief.
IV. Submissions
9. While all the parties were present in Court, they were directed to have the Notice of Motion application dated 15 th December, 2025, and the Replying Affidavit sworn on 4 th February, 2026, be disposed of by way of written submissions. All the parties duly complied with the Court’s directions. Pursuant thereto, the parties obliged, and a ruling date was accordingly reserved for the 21 st September, 2026 by the Honourable Court.
A. The Written Submissions by the Intended Interested Party
10. The Intended Interested Party through the Law firm of Messrs. Munga Kibanga & Co. Advocates filed their written submissions dated 9 th February, 2026. The Learned Counsel submitted that the intended interested party/applicant is the registered proprietor of land parcel Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1170, which parcel is neighbouring and directly affected by the boundary determination and survey recommendations arising from the dispute subject of this suit. Upon learning that the said survey recommendations extend to and affect his parcel, the applicant filed the present application seeking joinder to these proceedings as an interested party. The application is opposed through the Plaintiff's replying affidavit dated 4 th February, 2026, wherein the Plaintiff opposes the joinder in its entirety and prayed for the dismissal of the application.
11. The Learned Counsel relied on the sole issue for determination being whether the intended interested party had demonstrated a sufficient, direct, and identifiable stake in the proceedings to warrant joinder. The Plaintiff instituted this suit as the proprietor of land parcel Kwale/Galu Kinondo/568, alleging trespass by the 1 st Defendant, the proprietor of land parcels Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1854 and 1855. The plaintiff further sued the 2 nd defendant for allegedly failing to issue a report on the said boundary dispute, despite having conducted hearings on the matter. The 2 nd Defendant has since filed a survey report dated 18 th June, 2025, whose findings and recommendations the Plaintiff expressly accepts and endorses in her replying affidavit (at paragraph 5).
12. Notably, the said survey report recommends boundary realignments and confirmations not only in respect of parcels Kwale/Galu Kinondo/568, 1854 and 1855, but also in respect of other neighbouring parcels, including Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1170, which is owned by the intended interested party. In view of the foregoing, this Honourable Court cannot properly consider, adopt, or give effect to the recommendations of the said survey report without the participation of all proprietors whose parcels stand to be affected, including the intended interested party. Proceeding otherwise would expose the Court's eventual determination to challenge and inevitably result in a multiplicity of suits by affected proprietors, contrary to the principle of efficient and economical use of the scarce judicial resources.
13. The provision of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 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 person who ought to have been joined... 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.”
14. The Learned Counsel submitted that this Court could not effectually and completely determine the issues in dispute without the participation of the intended interested party, whose proprietary rights stand to be materially affected by the boundary adjustments recommended by the 2 nd Defendant. The Plaintiff could not approbate and reprobate: having expressly embraced the survey report and its recommendations, she cannot, in the same breath, oppose the participation of a proprietor whose land is directly affected by those very recommendations.
15. The Supreme Court in the case of:- “Communications Commission of Kenya and 4 Others – Versus - Royal Media Services Limited & 7 Others Petition No. 15 OF (2014) eKLR” pronounced itself on who an Interested Party is and held as follows:-
“In determining whether the applicant should be admitted into these proceedings as an interested party, we are guided by this Court's decision 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.”
16. According to the Learned Counsel it was not disputed that the Applicant was the registered owner of Kwale/Galu Kinondo/1170, a parcel situated within the same survey block and boundary matrix as parcels 568, 1854 and 1855, which are the subject of the impugned survey report. The survey report expressly recommends boundary realignments and confirmations which could not lawfully or procedurally be undertaken in the absence of the Applicant, who had demonstrated a direct, proximate, and identifiable interest, as opposed to a remote or speculative one. It was therefore in the interest of justice that the Applicant be joined to these proceedings in order to facilitate a holistic, fair, and conclusive determination of the boundary dispute and to forestall multiplicity of suits.
17. The Learned Counsel concluded that the Applicant had satisfied all the legal and jurisprudential thresholds for joinder as an interested party. His joinder will occasion no prejudice to any party but will greatly assist the Court in rendering a complete, fair, and enforceable determination of the issues in dispute. For the foregoing reasons, the intended interested party respectfully prayed that this Honourable Court be pleased to allow the application dated 15 th December, 2025 as prayed.
B. The Written Submissions by the Plaintiff
18. The Plaintiff through the Law firm of Messrs. Stephen Njumbale & Company Advocates filed their written submissions dated 9 th March, 2026. Mr. Njumbale Advocate submitted that the submissions were filed on behalf of the Plaintiff in firm opposition to the Intended Interested Party's Application dated 15 th December, 2025, seeking leave to be joined in these proceedings as an Interested Party. The said application was misconceived, legally untenable, procedurally incompetent and an abuse of the process of this Honourable Court. The application represents a transparent attempt by a complete stranger to the dispute to intrude into proceedings whose subject matter neither concerns him nor threatens any legally recognizable interest of his. The Intended Interested Party seeks to insinuate himself into a dispute that was and remained, exclusively between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant notwithstanding the fact that the dispute giving rise to the suit has already undergone the statutory dispute resolution mechanism prescribed by law.
19. On the legal threshold for joinder of interested party. The Learned Counsel submitted that the principles governing joinder of interested parties were now firmly settled in Kenyan jurisprudence. A party seeking to be enjoined in proceedings must demonstrate a clearly identifiable, proximate and legally recognizable stake in the proceedings, and must further show that such interest would be prejudicially affected by the outcome of the case if the party is not joined.
20. To buttress on this legal position, he cited the case of:- “Olang – Versus - Nuaga & Others (Environment and Land Case 52 of 2019)[2026]KEELC 1202 (KLR)” the court reiterated the principles governing joinder of an interested party and cited with approval the decision of the Supreme Court in “Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another – Versus - Republic & 5 Others [2016] eKLR” , where the Court stated:
“From the foregoing legal provisions and case law, the following elements emerge as applicable where a party seeks to be joined in proceedings as an interested party:
(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 proximate enough, and not 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. The prejudice must be real and not remote.
(c) A party must set out the case or submissions it intends to make before the Court and demonstrate the relevance of those submissions. It must further be shown that such submissions will not merely replicate those of the existing parties.”
21. Therefore, according to the Learned Counsel, Joinder was not a procedural indulgence available to every curious bystander. It was a strictly regulated legal mechanism reserved only for those whose rights stood to be directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings. The Intended Interested Party in the present case fell spectacularly short of this threshold. The substratum of the present suit was a boundary dispute between the Plaintiff and the 1 st Defendant arising from the latter’s unlawful encroachment onto the Plaintiff's parcel of land. At no time whatsoever had the Intended Interested Party had any boundary dispute with the Plaintiff. Pursuant to the directions of this Honourable Court, the District Land Registrar, Kwale County, conducted a statutory boundary determination exercise in accordance with the provision of Sections 18 and 19 of the Land Registration Act.
22. The exercise was conducted after notice was issued to the relevant parties and neighbouring landowners, and culminated in a formal determination of the boundary between the Plaintiff and the 1 st Defendant. Upon completion of the exercise, the Land Registrar prepared a report which was duly filed before this Honourable Court and now forms part of the court record. By virtue of that determination, the boundary between the Plaintiff and the 1 st Defendant was lawfully, conclusively and authoritatively fixed. The Intended Interested Party was never a disputant in that process, nor did he assert any competing claim at the material time.
23. The Learned Counsel further submitted that once the Land Registrar’ undertook a boundary determination under the Land Registration Act, the determination may only be challenged through the statutory procedures provided by law. The law never permit parties to circumvent or re - open such determinations through collateral proceedings. This position was firmly articulated by the Court of Appeal in “Speaker of the National Assembly – Versus - Karume [1992] KLR” , where the Court held:
“Where there is a clear procedure for the redress of any particular grievance prescribed by the Constitution or an Act of Parliament, that procedure should be strictly followed.”
24. Similarly, the Court of Appeal in “Geoffrey Muthinja & Another – Versus - Samuel Muguna Henry & 1756 Others [2015] eKLR” emphasized the doctrine of exhaustion in the following terms:
“It is imperative that where a dispute resolution mechanism exists outside courts, the same be exhausted before the jurisdiction of the courts is invoked. Courts ought to be the fora of last resort and not the first port of call.”
25. According to the Learned Counsel, Courts must therefore respect and uphold the doctrine of exhaustion of statutory remedies. In the present matter, the statutory process was not merely invoked - it was fully undertaken and completed. The Land Registrar conducted the exercise, made the determination and filed the report before this Honourable Court. The statutory mandate entrusted to the Land Registrar by Parliament was therefore fully discharged.
26. The Learned Counsel submitted that it was particularly significant that the 1 st Defendant, who was the actual disputant in the boundary dispute, participated in the boundary determination exercise and accepted the outcome thereof. The party directly affected by the determination had not challenged the same through any legally prescribed avenue. It would therefore be legally incongruous and impermissible for the Intended Interested Party, who was never a disputant in the process, to seek to indirectly challenge or reopen that determination. The Intended Interested Party could not cry louder than the bereaved. To permit such conduct would be to sanction a procedural ambush upon a statutory determination that has already attained finality.
27. On the only issue remaining before Court were on eviction and costs. The Learned Counsel submitted that following the Land Registrar’s determination, the boundary dispute that formed the foundation of this suit has already been fully resolved. The proceedings had therefore progressed beyond the stage of boundary adjudication. The only matters now remaining for determination by this Honourable Court were consequential reliefs, namely:
a) Eviction of the 1 st Defendant from the Plaintiff's land; and
b) Costs of the suit.
28. These issues related exclusively to the conduct and occupation of the 1 st Defendant. They did not in any manner implicate or concern the Intended Interested Party. The Intended Interested Party had not demonstrated that:
a. any portion of his land formed part of the dispute;
b. his proprietary rights were threatened; or
c. the orders sought in the Plaint would affect him in any conceivable manner
29. According to the Learned Counsel it therefore followed that no final orders arising from this suit would interfere with the Intended Interested Party's land or rights.
30. On the Application was a transparent attempt to hijack the Plaintiff’s case. The Learned Counsel submitted that the Intended Interested Party’s application was nothing more than a belated and opportunistic stratagem aimed at intruding upon proceedings that have already progressed through the statutory dispute resolution framework. The application was an unmistakable attempt to hijack the Plaintiff's case and transform a narrow and straightforward dispute into an unnecessary and unwarranted controversy. Courts must remain vigilant against such attempts, particularly where joinder would only serve to delay proceedings, introduce’ collateral issues, and undermine the finality of statutory determinations.
31. In conclusion, the Learned Counsel submitted that the Intended Interested Party had failed - comprehensively and irredeemably - to demonstrate any direct, proximate or legally recognizable interest in the subject matter of this suit. The boundary dispute between the Plaintiff and the 1 st Defendant had already been lawfully determined by the Land Registrar in accordance with the Land Registration Act, and the report thereof has been duly filed before this Honourable Court. The statutory process had therefore been fully exhausted, and the party directly affected by the determination has accepted the outcome. The only issues now remaining before the Court concern eviction of the 1 st Defendant and costs, matters that do not implicate the Intended Interested Party in any manner. The application for joinder was therefore misconceived, unnecessary and a clear abuse of the process of this Honourable Court.
32. Hence, the Learned Counsel respectfully urged this Honourable Court to dismiss the Intended Interested Party's Application dated 15 th December, 2025 with costs.
V. Analysis and Determination
33. The Honourable Court carefully read and considered the Notice of Motion application dated 15 th December, 2025 filed by the Intended Interested Party, Mike Nyaga Njeru, the Replying Affidavit sworn on 4 th February, 2026 filed by the Plaintiff, Jane Wamuchii Muiruri, and the Written Submissions dated 9 th March, 2026 filed on behalf of the Plaintiff. The Court also considered the Supporting Affidavit sworn by Mike Nyaga Njeru, together with the annexures thereto, the objections raised by the Plaintiff, and the relevant statutory provisions and authorities cited the provision of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and Statures.
34. In order to arrive at an informed decision, Equitable and reasonable decision, the Honourable Court framed the following four ( 4 ) issues for its determination:-
a. Whether the Applicant has demonstrated a sufficient, direct, and identifiable stake in the proceedings to warrant joinder as an Interested Party;
b. Whether the joinder of the Applicant is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit; and
c. Whether the Application is an abuse of the process of the Court, having regard to the alleged finality of the statutory boundary determination.
d. Who ought to bear the costs of the application
ISSUE No. a). Whether the Applicant has demonstrated a sufficient, direct, and identifiable stake in the proceedings to warrant joinder as an Interested Party;
35. Under this Sub – heading, the Honorable Court will be critically assessing the legal concept of joinder of parties. The power of the Court to order joinder of a party is founded upon the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, which provides as follows:-
“The court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the court may be necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added.”
36. The provision is a broad and enabling one. It confers upon the Court a discretionary power, exercisable at any stage of the proceedings, to add a person whose presence before the Court is necessary to enable the Court to ‘effectually and completely’ adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. The discretion, however, is not to be exercised capriciously, but judicially and in accordance with settled principles.
37. The governing principles on joinder of an Interested Party have been deliberated on extensively by High Courts. They were authoritatively settled by the Supreme Court of “Kenya in Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance – Versus - Mumo Matemo & 5 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 12 of 2013; [2014] eKLR” , where the Court defined an interested party in the following terms:
“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.”
38. The Supreme Court subsequently elaborated the applicable principles in “Francis Kariuki Muruatetu & Another – Versus - Republic & 5 Others ( Supra)” , where the Court held as follows:-
“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:
(a) One must move the Court by way of a formal application. Enjoinment is not as of right, but is at the discretion of the Court; hence, sufficient grounds must be laid before the Court, on the basis of the following elements:
(i) The personal interest or stake that the party has in the matter must be set out in the application. The interest must be clearly identifiable and must be proximate enough, to stand apart from anything that is merely peripheral.
(ii) The prejudice to be suffered by the intended interested party in case of non-joinder, must also be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court. It must also be clearly outlined and not something remote.
(iii) A party must set out the case and/or submissions it intends to make before the Court, and demonstrate the relevance of those submissions. It must also be demonstrated that such submissions are not merely a replication of what the other parties will be making before the Court.”
39. These principles were applied and affirmed by the Environment and Land Court in the case of:- “Olang – Versus - Nuaga & Others, Environment and Land Case No. 52 of 2019; [2026] KEELC 1202 (KLR)” , which reiterated that joinder is not a procedural indulgence available to every curious bystander, but a strictly reg
[...truncated]