A. INTRODUCTION
1. This is a ruling on the motion dated 30th January 2026 filed by the Kenya Sugar Manufacturers Association (hereinafter “the Applicant”) seeking leave to be joined in these proceedings as an interested party. The application is supported by the affidavit of Stephen Ligawa. The Respondents filed grounds of opposition and written submissions . The Petition underpins challenges relating to the constitution and composition of the Kenya Sugar Board, the collection and utilization of the Sugar Development Levy, and alleged infringements of constitutional principles relating to public finance, participation and accountability.
2. The respondents filed grounds of opposition and submissions contesting the intended joinder . Those objection principally rest on arguments of potential duplication and alleged sufficiency of the existing parties to represent the sugar industry interests.
3. Having considered the application , the affidavit evidence, the able written submissions by both counsel and the applicable law.
4. The core question for determination is whether the Applicant has established the legal threshold for joinder as an interested party in a constitutional petition pursuant to the applicable rules and jurisprudence.
B. PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK AND APPLICABLE LAW
5. The procedure for joinder of interested parties in Constitutional matters is governed by Rule 7 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013 (hereinafter “the Rules”). Rule 7 provides that a person, with leave of the Court, may make an oral or written application to be joined as an interested party and that the Court may also, on its own motion, join any interested party to the proceedings.
6. The Court’s discretion to permit joinder is guided by established principles developed in the jurisprudence of this Court and the Supreme Court. Relevant authorities include, but are not limited to:
- Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another v Republic & 5 Others [2016] eKLR, where the Supreme Court emphasized that enjoinment is discretionary and that a party seeking joinder must demonstrate (a) an identifiable stake; (b) prejudice in non-joinder; and (c) relevance of the intended submissions.
- Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu [2015] eKLR which describes an interested party as one who “has a stake in the proceedings and will be affected by the decision of the Court.”
- Communications Commission of Kenya v Royal Media Services [2014] eKLR which recognized that joinder serves the objective of enabling the complete and effectual determination of all issues before the Court.
- Civicon Limited v Kivuwatt Limited & 2 Others [2015] eKLR, and other authorities that elucidate the rationale for joinder: facilitation of complete settlement of questions in the suit, protection of rights likely to be affected by the orders sought, and avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings.
7. These authorities collectively inform the test applied by this Court. The Court must be satisfied that the applicant:
a) has an identifiable and legally cognizable interest in the subject matter;
b) will suffer prejudice if not joined; and
c) will make a material and relevant contribution to the issues before the Court that will assist in achieving a just and comprehensive determination.
C. FACTUAL MATRIX
8. The Petition asserts, inter alia, that:
a) The constitution and composition of the Kenya Sugar Board (hereinafter “the Board”) is irregular and inconsistent with statutory and constitutional mandates;
b) The Sugar Development Levy (hereinafter “the Levy”) has been unlawfully collected and/or utilized contrary to statutory provisions and principles of public finance and accountability; and
c) These impugned actions contravene constitutional principles including Articles 10 (national values and principles of governance), 201 (national values and principles of public finance) and provisions relevant to public participation and accountability.
9. The Applicant is an association of sugar millers operating in Kenya. Its averments, supported by affidavit material, may be summarized as follows:
a) Its members are the entities upon which the Sugar Development Levy is imposed and collected;
b) Its members are beneficiaries of allocations made under the Sugar Act, including allocations for factory development and rehabilitation that derive from the Levy;
c) The Sugar Act, in Section 6(1)(c), expressly provides for representation of private and public owned sugar mills on the Board; and
d) The Applicant asserts that the subject matter of the Petition will materially affect the legal and proprietary interests of its members and the operational framework of the sugar industry.
D. ANALYSIS
(i) Whether the Applicant has an Identifiable Stake
10. . The threshold is whether the Applicant’s interest is direct, proximate and legally cognizable. The Applicant’s affidavit and annexed documentary material reveal:
a) The Levy is legally imposed on millers and in practice is collected from them; evidence before Court shows that a portion of the Levy is earmarked for factory development and rehabilitation from which millers derive direct economic benefit;
b) The Sugar Act expressly contemplates representation of millers on the Board, thereby conferring statutory recognition on millers as stakeholders in the governance of the sector; and
c) The Petitioners and Respondents will, in their respective pleadings, canvass matters touching on the Levy and Board composition. However, the discrete statutory role of millers, the economic impact upon them, and the technical dimensions of levy administration place the Applicant in a distinct position to furnish evidence and submissions that complement, rather than duplicate, existing materials.
11.. The interest asserted by the Applicant is therefore neither abstract nor peripheral. It is embedded in statute and connected to concrete financial and governance rights of its members. On the material before the Court, the Applicant satisfies the “identifiable stake” limb of the enjoinment test.
(ii) Whether Non-Joinder Will Cause Prejudice
12. The Petition prays for reliefs that touch on the collection, administration and disbursement of public funds (the Levy) and the constitution of the Board which participates in, and determines, levy allocations. If the Court makes orders altering the lawfulness of the Levy’s collection or the Board’s composition, such orders would directly impact the statutory entitlements and business interests of the millers.
13. Prejudice in this context is not limited to a proprietary loss post-litigation; it encompasses the denial of a the right to be heard in proceedings that may determine the legal framework governing the Applicant’s statutory rights. In the event that the application is disallowed, the Applicant would be denied the opportunity to adduce evidence and make submissions on matters of technical industry practice and statutory interpretation which are peculiarly within its knowledge and interest. This would risk rendering any determination incomplete and potentially unfair to those directly affected.
14. Accordingly, non-joinder would occasion a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the Applicant and to the final resolution of the dispute.
(iii) Whether the Applicant Will Add Material Value to the Determination
15. The Rules and the jurisprudence recognize the value of sector-specific expertise and perspectives in constitutional litigation touching on public policy and administrative decisions. The Applicant has demonstrated an intention to address discrete and material issues that are distinct from the Petitioner’s concerns (as small-holder growers) and the Respondents’ administrative perspective. In particular, the Applicant contends it will illuminate:
a) The practical operations and financial flows associated with the Levy, including how allocations are implemented to support factory development and rehabilitation;
b) The interpretative and operational significance of Section 6(1)(c) of the Sugar Act with respect to the Board’s composition and the role of miller representation; and
c) The implications of proposed remedial orders for industry viability, investment and sectoral stability.
14. These contributions are directly relevant to the Court’s exercise of constitutional adjudication in the present matter. Inclusion of the Applicant’s submissions and evidence will assist the Court in making a nuanced and informed determination that fully addresses the intersecting interests of all stakeholders.
(iv) Public Interest Considerations and Avoidance of Multiplicity of Proceedings
15. The Petition engages matters of public finance and public participation — arenas in which inclusivity of stakeholders is not merely desirable but constitutionally resonant. Articles 10 and 201 enjoin public participation, transparency and accountability in public financial management. The sugar sector comprises multiple stakeholders whose interests are interdependent. Saving of Judicial time , avoidance of multiplicity of suits, and the need for a complete adjudication of all issues likewise weigh in favour of permitting joinder where the party to be joined represents a class with statutory roles and factual stakes in the subject matter.
16. The Court is mindful that joinder is a discretionary remedy to be exercised judicially. It must balance the interests of justice, the efficient progression of litigation, and the rights of parties already before the Court. There is no material suggestion that the Applicant’s joinder will unduly delay proceedings or prejudice existing parties insofar as procedural safeguards (timely filings and directions) can be imposed to ensure expeditious adjudication. On balance, the public interest and the objectives underpinning joinder favour inclusion of the Applicant.
E. DISCRETION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
17. The Court reiterates that the power to join an interested party is discretionary and anchored in principles of fairness, comprehensiveness of adjudication, and the constitutional imperatives of participation and accountability. Joinder ought not be granted as of course; the applicant must show that its presence is necessary in order to enable the Court “effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved” in the proceedings. The material before this Court satisfies that requirement.
F. RELIEF AND DIRECTIONS
18. Having considered the application , the affidavit evidence, the able written submissions and the applicable law, the Court is satisfied that the Applicant has established:
a) an identifiable and legally cognizable interest in the subject matter of the Petition;
b) a real risk of prejudice if the applicant is not joined; and
c) the capacity to make material and relevant submissions that will assist the Court to arrive at a just and comprehensive determination of the issues .
19. The application for joinder is therefore meritorious and is allowed, subject to the following directions to ensure the orderly and expeditious conduct of the proceedings:
Orders
20. The Court makes the following orders:
a) The application dated 30th January 2026 by the Kenya Sugar Manufacturers Association for leave to be joined as an interested party is hereby allowed.
b) The Applicant is hereby enjoined as an Interested Party in these proceedings.
c) The interested party shall file and serve it’s response and written submissions to the application dated 15.12.25 and 19.12.25 within seven (7) days of the date of this Ruling.
d) Mention on 9.4.26 for compliance
.
f) Costs of this application shall be in the cause.
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
1.4.26
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA TEAMS PLATFORM ON THIS 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2026 IN THE PRESENCE OF :
MR P.D ONYANGO FOR THE PETITIONER,
MR ODAYO H/B FOR MISS AWUOR FO THE 1ST & 2ND RESPONDENT & FOR THE 2ND PROPOSED INTERESTED PARTY .
MR AIRA GODFFREY HOLDING BRIEF MADOWO FOR THE 1ST PROPOSED INTERESTED PARTY
Odayo : Our application is dated 3.3.26 by KSRTI we seek directions on disposal. We served and PD Onyango responded
P.D Onyango : I do confirm we filed a reply .I await instructions form my clients to see if we can agree to it
Aira : We saw the application in the portal . We could not respond we do not object to it .
Directions : Petitioners to decide on whether they are opposing the application within 3 days from today. Incase there is no disagreement then submissions be filed. Mention on 9.4.26. Interim orders dated 15.12.26 and 19.12.26 are extended .
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
1.4.26
1. This is a ruling on the motion dated 30th January 2026 filed by the Kenya Sugar Manufacturers Association (hereinafter “the Applicant”) seeking leave to be joined in these proceedings as an interested party. The application is supported by the affidavit of Stephen Ligawa. The Respondents filed grounds of opposition and written submissions . The Petition underpins challenges relating to the constitution and composition of the Kenya Sugar Board, the collection and utilization of the Sugar Development Levy, and alleged infringements of constitutional principles relating to public finance, participation and accountability.
2. The respondents filed grounds of opposition and submissions contesting the intended joinder . Those objection principally rest on arguments of potential duplication and alleged sufficiency of the existing parties to represent the sugar industry interests.
3. Having considered the application , the affidavit evidence, the able written submissions by both counsel and the applicable law.
4. The core question for determination is whether the Applicant has established the legal threshold for joinder as an interested party in a constitutional petition pursuant to the applicable rules and jurisprudence.
B. PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK AND APPLICABLE LAW
5. The procedure for joinder of interested parties in Constitutional matters is governed by Rule 7 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013 (hereinafter “the Rules”). Rule 7 provides that a person, with leave of the Court, may make an oral or written application to be joined as an interested party and that the Court may also, on its own motion, join any interested party to the proceedings.
6. The Court’s discretion to permit joinder is guided by established principles developed in the jurisprudence of this Court and the Supreme Court. Relevant authorities include, but are not limited to:
- Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another v Republic & 5 Others [2016] eKLR, where the Supreme Court emphasized that enjoinment is discretionary and that a party seeking joinder must demonstrate (a) an identifiable stake; (b) prejudice in non-joinder; and (c) relevance of the intended submissions.
- Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemu [2015] eKLR which describes an interested party as one who “has a stake in the proceedings and will be affected by the decision of the Court.”
- Communications Commission of Kenya v Royal Media Services [2014] eKLR which recognized that joinder serves the objective of enabling the complete and effectual determination of all issues before the Court.
- Civicon Limited v Kivuwatt Limited & 2 Others [2015] eKLR, and other authorities that elucidate the rationale for joinder: facilitation of complete settlement of questions in the suit, protection of rights likely to be affected by the orders sought, and avoidance of multiplicity of proceedings.
7. These authorities collectively inform the test applied by this Court. The Court must be satisfied that the applicant:
a) has an identifiable and legally cognizable interest in the subject matter;
b) will suffer prejudice if not joined; and
c) will make a material and relevant contribution to the issues before the Court that will assist in achieving a just and comprehensive determination.
C. FACTUAL MATRIX
8. The Petition asserts, inter alia, that:
a) The constitution and composition of the Kenya Sugar Board (hereinafter “the Board”) is irregular and inconsistent with statutory and constitutional mandates;
b) The Sugar Development Levy (hereinafter “the Levy”) has been unlawfully collected and/or utilized contrary to statutory provisions and principles of public finance and accountability; and
c) These impugned actions contravene constitutional principles including Articles 10 (national values and principles of governance), 201 (national values and principles of public finance) and provisions relevant to public participation and accountability.
9. The Applicant is an association of sugar millers operating in Kenya. Its averments, supported by affidavit material, may be summarized as follows:
a) Its members are the entities upon which the Sugar Development Levy is imposed and collected;
b) Its members are beneficiaries of allocations made under the Sugar Act, including allocations for factory development and rehabilitation that derive from the Levy;
c) The Sugar Act, in Section 6(1)(c), expressly provides for representation of private and public owned sugar mills on the Board; and
d) The Applicant asserts that the subject matter of the Petition will materially affect the legal and proprietary interests of its members and the operational framework of the sugar industry.
D. ANALYSIS
(i) Whether the Applicant has an Identifiable Stake
10. . The threshold is whether the Applicant’s interest is direct, proximate and legally cognizable. The Applicant’s affidavit and annexed documentary material reveal:
a) The Levy is legally imposed on millers and in practice is collected from them; evidence before Court shows that a portion of the Levy is earmarked for factory development and rehabilitation from which millers derive direct economic benefit;
b) The Sugar Act expressly contemplates representation of millers on the Board, thereby conferring statutory recognition on millers as stakeholders in the governance of the sector; and
c) The Petitioners and Respondents will, in their respective pleadings, canvass matters touching on the Levy and Board composition. However, the discrete statutory role of millers, the economic impact upon them, and the technical dimensions of levy administration place the Applicant in a distinct position to furnish evidence and submissions that complement, rather than duplicate, existing materials.
11.. The interest asserted by the Applicant is therefore neither abstract nor peripheral. It is embedded in statute and connected to concrete financial and governance rights of its members. On the material before the Court, the Applicant satisfies the “identifiable stake” limb of the enjoinment test.
(ii) Whether Non-Joinder Will Cause Prejudice
12. The Petition prays for reliefs that touch on the collection, administration and disbursement of public funds (the Levy) and the constitution of the Board which participates in, and determines, levy allocations. If the Court makes orders altering the lawfulness of the Levy’s collection or the Board’s composition, such orders would directly impact the statutory entitlements and business interests of the millers.
13. Prejudice in this context is not limited to a proprietary loss post-litigation; it encompasses the denial of a the right to be heard in proceedings that may determine the legal framework governing the Applicant’s statutory rights. In the event that the application is disallowed, the Applicant would be denied the opportunity to adduce evidence and make submissions on matters of technical industry practice and statutory interpretation which are peculiarly within its knowledge and interest. This would risk rendering any determination incomplete and potentially unfair to those directly affected.
14. Accordingly, non-joinder would occasion a real and substantial risk of prejudice to the Applicant and to the final resolution of the dispute.
(iii) Whether the Applicant Will Add Material Value to the Determination
15. The Rules and the jurisprudence recognize the value of sector-specific expertise and perspectives in constitutional litigation touching on public policy and administrative decisions. The Applicant has demonstrated an intention to address discrete and material issues that are distinct from the Petitioner’s concerns (as small-holder growers) and the Respondents’ administrative perspective. In particular, the Applicant contends it will illuminate:
a) The practical operations and financial flows associated with the Levy, including how allocations are implemented to support factory development and rehabilitation;
b) The interpretative and operational significance of Section 6(1)(c) of the Sugar Act with respect to the Board’s composition and the role of miller representation; and
c) The implications of proposed remedial orders for industry viability, investment and sectoral stability.
14. These contributions are directly relevant to the Court’s exercise of constitutional adjudication in the present matter. Inclusion of the Applicant’s submissions and evidence will assist the Court in making a nuanced and informed determination that fully addresses the intersecting interests of all stakeholders.
(iv) Public Interest Considerations and Avoidance of Multiplicity of Proceedings
15. The Petition engages matters of public finance and public participation — arenas in which inclusivity of stakeholders is not merely desirable but constitutionally resonant. Articles 10 and 201 enjoin public participation, transparency and accountability in public financial management. The sugar sector comprises multiple stakeholders whose interests are interdependent. Saving of Judicial time , avoidance of multiplicity of suits, and the need for a complete adjudication of all issues likewise weigh in favour of permitting joinder where the party to be joined represents a class with statutory roles and factual stakes in the subject matter.
16. The Court is mindful that joinder is a discretionary remedy to be exercised judicially. It must balance the interests of justice, the efficient progression of litigation, and the rights of parties already before the Court. There is no material suggestion that the Applicant’s joinder will unduly delay proceedings or prejudice existing parties insofar as procedural safeguards (timely filings and directions) can be imposed to ensure expeditious adjudication. On balance, the public interest and the objectives underpinning joinder favour inclusion of the Applicant.
E. DISCRETION AND GUIDING PRINCIPLES
17. The Court reiterates that the power to join an interested party is discretionary and anchored in principles of fairness, comprehensiveness of adjudication, and the constitutional imperatives of participation and accountability. Joinder ought not be granted as of course; the applicant must show that its presence is necessary in order to enable the Court “effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved” in the proceedings. The material before this Court satisfies that requirement.
F. RELIEF AND DIRECTIONS
18. Having considered the application , the affidavit evidence, the able written submissions and the applicable law, the Court is satisfied that the Applicant has established:
a) an identifiable and legally cognizable interest in the subject matter of the Petition;
b) a real risk of prejudice if the applicant is not joined; and
c) the capacity to make material and relevant submissions that will assist the Court to arrive at a just and comprehensive determination of the issues .
19. The application for joinder is therefore meritorious and is allowed, subject to the following directions to ensure the orderly and expeditious conduct of the proceedings:
Orders
20. The Court makes the following orders:
a) The application dated 30th January 2026 by the Kenya Sugar Manufacturers Association for leave to be joined as an interested party is hereby allowed.
b) The Applicant is hereby enjoined as an Interested Party in these proceedings.
c) The interested party shall file and serve it’s response and written submissions to the application dated 15.12.25 and 19.12.25 within seven (7) days of the date of this Ruling.
d) Mention on 9.4.26 for compliance
.
f) Costs of this application shall be in the cause.
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
1.4.26
DELIVERED VIRTUALLY VIA TEAMS PLATFORM ON THIS 1ST DAY OF APRIL 2026 IN THE PRESENCE OF :
MR P.D ONYANGO FOR THE PETITIONER,
MR ODAYO H/B FOR MISS AWUOR FO THE 1ST & 2ND RESPONDENT & FOR THE 2ND PROPOSED INTERESTED PARTY .
MR AIRA GODFFREY HOLDING BRIEF MADOWO FOR THE 1ST PROPOSED INTERESTED PARTY
Odayo : Our application is dated 3.3.26 by KSRTI we seek directions on disposal. We served and PD Onyango responded
P.D Onyango : I do confirm we filed a reply .I await instructions form my clients to see if we can agree to it
Aira : We saw the application in the portal . We could not respond we do not object to it .
Directions : Petitioners to decide on whether they are opposing the application within 3 days from today. Incase there is no disagreement then submissions be filed. Mention on 9.4.26. Interim orders dated 15.12.26 and 19.12.26 are extended .
T.A ODERA
JUDGE
1.4.26