1. The application before the Court is dated 23rd January 2026. Through the said application, Al Mahra Industries Ltd, the intended interested party, seeks the following orders:-
(1) Spent;
(2) That this honourable Court be pleased to enjoin Al Mahra Industries Ltd in these proceedings as an interested party;
(3) That upon being joined, the intended interested party be granted leave to file and serve all relevant pleadings and affidavits as may be necessary for the just determination of this matter;
(4) That the costs of this application be in the cause.
2. The intended interested party/applicant contends that it is the registered user or owner of the “pasha” trademark, which was registered in Kenya in 2002. The initial owner of the trade mark was Akaba Investments Ltd. The said company assigned it to the intended interested party/applicant on 21st December 2012. It was averred that there had been expungement of trade mark proceedings at the Kenya Industrial Property Institute (hereafter KIPI) and an appeal thereafter to the High Court, both of which were determined in favour of the intended interested party/applicant. According to the said party, the High Court's determination was final and settled the matter. The trademark was renewed by KIPI on 24th May 2021 for a further 10-year term until 29th July 2023.
3. The intended interested party/applicant argued that Krish Commodities Ltd was packaging goods and selling them under the “Pasha” trademark, allegedly on the authority or on behalf of Lessaffre El Compagnie and Lessaffre Egypt. It claimed that the outcome of the judicial review application pending before this Court would directly affect it, as it possesses a clear and identifiable legal right and interest in the matter. Therefore, it was submitted that the said party should be added as an interested party to enable the Court to effectively and fully adjudicate all issues arising in these proceedings.
4. The intended interested party/applicant urged that no prejudice would be suffered by any of the parties if the application was allowed.
5. The application was opposed by Krish Commodities Ltd. I shall hereafter refer to the said party as the applicant/respondent. Through an affidavit sworn by Mr Mitul Shah, the applicant/respondent's director, it denied that the issue of ownership of the trademark was before the Court for determination. Mr Shah deposed that the existence of the trademark, whose existence wasn’t conceded, wasn’t determinative of the counterfeiting charge under section 2 of the Anti-Counterfeit Act. He stated that the intended interested party/applicant should not be added as a party, as the issue before the Court was one of the legality of the respondent’s administrative actions. He saw in the application an attempt by the applicant to re-litigate matters which had already been determined by KIPI and the High Court.
6. Mr Shan further deposed that the intended interested party/applicant hadn’t demonstrated how the outcome of the proceedings would directly or adversely affect it in any legally cognizable manner. He averred that the Act was concerned with lawfulness, rationality and procedural fairness of the respondent’s actions. In his view, what the intended interested party/applicant intended to do was to prosecute substantive private claims within the judicial review proceedings. That being the case, it was procedurally misconceived and inconsistent with the structure and purpose of judicial review under the Fair Administrative Actions, Rules 2024.
7. Mr Shan further deposed that the respondent was capable of defending the legality of its decision, including by relying on complaints or information received from third parties. He stated that it hadn’t been demonstrated that the intended interested party/applicant's involvement was necessary to determine the issues in dispute.
8. The application was also opposed by the respondent vide a replying affidavit sworn on 12th February 2026 by Mr Hussein Agole, an inspector of the respondent. He deposed that the application does not meet the threshold for joinder as stated in the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic & 5 others [2016] eKLR. He deposed that the intended interested party/applicant hadn’t placed any material before the Court that would enable it to exercise its discretion in its favour. It hadn’t demonstrated a proximate or identifiable stake in the proceeding, and what it had provided was merely peripheral and did not concern the judicial Review Proceedings.
9. Mr Agole stated that, after lodging a complaint, the interests of the intended interested party/applicant would be sufficiently represented by the respondent. Therefore, their presence was not required to decide the issues in question. He argued that, instead of aiding the fair resolution of the matter, adding the intended interested party/applicant would muddle the issues and hinder the Court's ability to identify the real disputes.
10. The deponent agreed with the applicant/respondent that judicial review proceedings were concerned with the processes and not the merits of the decision. He urged that the merits of the issues of concern to the intended interested party/applicant were determined by the KIPI and the High Court.
11. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The submissions of the proposed interested party/applicant are dated 27th February 2026.
12. The intended interested party/applicant counsel contended that it ought to be joined as an interested party as it has a recognizable stake and therefore standing in the matter. counsel urged that the applicant met the test for joinder of an interested party as set out in the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic & 5 others [2016] eKLR.
13. It was urged that the intended interested party/applicant has an identifiable stake insofar as the goods seized by the respondent were branded with the trademark “pasha”, which, in her view, evinced a clearly identifiable and proximate interest.
14. Regarding prejudice they would suffer if there was no joinder, it was urged that the intended interested party/applicant had an interest in the seized goods since its trademark was used and that it would suffer if the Court ordered the said goods to be released to Krish Commodities Ltd. Counsel submitted that there was a clear and present risk that there would thereafter be further infringements of its trademark.
15. Lastly, it was urged that the intended interested party/applicant, if joined as a party, would be submitting that it has a stake in the matter. That would help the Court determine whether the goods were counterfeit and, if not, whether they should be released back to Krish Commodities Ltd.
16. The applicant/respondent’s counsel, on the other hand, filed written submissions dated 10th March 2026. Vide the aid submissions issues for determination were identified as being:-
i. Whether trademark ownership raised by the applicant was within the scope of judicial review; and
ii. Whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient legal interest to warrant joinder.
17. Counsel submitted that judicial review is predicated on examination of the process by which a public authority reaches a decision rather than the substantive merit of the dispute itself. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Biren Amritlal Shah & another v Republic & 3 others [2013] KECA 273 (KLR).
18. It was submitted that the gravamen of the applicant’s case was the ownership of the trademark “pasha”, which had already been adjudicated by KIPI and the High Court. This was contrasted with the judicial review proceedings, which counsel submitted were concerned with whether the respondent lawfully exercised its statutory mandate, complied with the applicable procedural requirements and acted within the bounds of its authority. It was urged that what the intended interested party/applicant was seeking was to convert judicial review proceedings into a civil trademark infringement dispute.
19. Mr Mohamed denied that the test in Francis Karioko Muruatetu had not been met, as it hadn’t been demonstrated that the intended interested party/applicant had a direct, proximate and identifiable legal interest in the issues before the Court, as well as what prejudice it would suffer if not joined. He contended that whatever grievances the applicant had could be pursued by way of civil action; counsel therefore urged that the application be dismissed.
20. The respondent, in brief submissions made by Mr Manwa, holding brief for Mr Adera, urged that it would be relying on the affidavit of Mr Hussein Agole and that it opposes the joinder application.
21. I have considered the matter. The issue I must determine is whether the proposed interested party should be added as a party to these proceedings.
22. I am in agreement with the parties' submissions that an interested party is one who has a recognizable stake and standing in the matter. The Court must thus consider and determine if the applicant meets the requisite test and can be added as a party.
23. The Supreme Court of Kenya set out the applicable test for joinder in the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu &another v Republic & 5 others [2016]eKLR. The Court stated that:
“37 From the foregoing legal provisions, and from the case law, the following elements emerge as applicable where a party seeks to be enjoined in proceedings as an interested party:
One must move the Court by way of a formal application. Enjoinment is not as of right, but is at the discretion of the Court; hence, sufficient grounds must be laid before the Court, on the basis of the following elements: 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. The prejudice to be suffered by the intended interested party in case of nonjoinder must also be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court. It must also be clearly outlined and not something remote. Lastly, a party must, in its application, set out the case and/or submissions it intends to make before the Court, and demonstrate the relevance of those submissions. It should also demonstrate that these submissions are not merely a replication of what the other parties will be making before the Court.
24. Does the intended interested party/applicant meet the above test? Can a party be added as an interested party in judicial review applications?
25. In my view, a party can be added as an interested party in judicial review proceedings provided the conditions in the Francis Muruatetu case are met. This has been held to be the right legal position in many decisions of the Courts of Records. I therefore do not agree with counsel for the respondent that joinder is not possible.
26. It is true that the intended interested party/applicant has an interest in the trademark “pasha”. The said trademark has been the subject of litigation in KIPI and the High Court. In the matters before the said tribunal and the court, a determination favourable to the intended interested party/applicant was made. That said, the matter before the Court is whether the Anti-Counterfeit Authority acted lawfully in the exercise of its statutory mandate, if it complied with applicable procedural requirements and whether its actions were within the bounds of its authority.
27. The challenge by Krish Commodities is in regard to the procedure used by the respondent and whether its action was lawful.
28. From what I have learned from the application, it would appear to me that the main issue for the applicant is its trademark. The concern of the intended interested party/applicant is merit-based and not founded on a question of process. In my view, the intended interested party/applicant’s interests, as the complainant, are peripheral and not sufficiently proximate.
29. I agree that, having made its complaint, which appears to have resulted in the enforcement action that Krish Commodities Ltd deprecates, its interest would best be served by the respondent. I further agree that, if the intended interested party/applicant were added, there would be a clear and present danger that the judicial review process would be hijacked and turned into a re-litigation of matters KIPI and the High Court had already considered and determined.
30. Further, I see no prejudice the intended interested party/applicant would suffer in any event, if it were not joined. If there is any prejudice in any view, it is remote and not direct.
31. In my view, the application dated 23rd January 2026 has no merit. The same is dismissed with costs.
32. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed this 18th day of March 2026. Delivered virtually through Microsoft TEAMS.
(1) Spent;
(2) That this honourable Court be pleased to enjoin Al Mahra Industries Ltd in these proceedings as an interested party;
(3) That upon being joined, the intended interested party be granted leave to file and serve all relevant pleadings and affidavits as may be necessary for the just determination of this matter;
(4) That the costs of this application be in the cause.
2. The intended interested party/applicant contends that it is the registered user or owner of the “pasha” trademark, which was registered in Kenya in 2002. The initial owner of the trade mark was Akaba Investments Ltd. The said company assigned it to the intended interested party/applicant on 21st December 2012. It was averred that there had been expungement of trade mark proceedings at the Kenya Industrial Property Institute (hereafter KIPI) and an appeal thereafter to the High Court, both of which were determined in favour of the intended interested party/applicant. According to the said party, the High Court's determination was final and settled the matter. The trademark was renewed by KIPI on 24th May 2021 for a further 10-year term until 29th July 2023.
3. The intended interested party/applicant argued that Krish Commodities Ltd was packaging goods and selling them under the “Pasha” trademark, allegedly on the authority or on behalf of Lessaffre El Compagnie and Lessaffre Egypt. It claimed that the outcome of the judicial review application pending before this Court would directly affect it, as it possesses a clear and identifiable legal right and interest in the matter. Therefore, it was submitted that the said party should be added as an interested party to enable the Court to effectively and fully adjudicate all issues arising in these proceedings.
4. The intended interested party/applicant urged that no prejudice would be suffered by any of the parties if the application was allowed.
5. The application was opposed by Krish Commodities Ltd. I shall hereafter refer to the said party as the applicant/respondent. Through an affidavit sworn by Mr Mitul Shah, the applicant/respondent's director, it denied that the issue of ownership of the trademark was before the Court for determination. Mr Shah deposed that the existence of the trademark, whose existence wasn’t conceded, wasn’t determinative of the counterfeiting charge under section 2 of the Anti-Counterfeit Act. He stated that the intended interested party/applicant should not be added as a party, as the issue before the Court was one of the legality of the respondent’s administrative actions. He saw in the application an attempt by the applicant to re-litigate matters which had already been determined by KIPI and the High Court.
6. Mr Shan further deposed that the intended interested party/applicant hadn’t demonstrated how the outcome of the proceedings would directly or adversely affect it in any legally cognizable manner. He averred that the Act was concerned with lawfulness, rationality and procedural fairness of the respondent’s actions. In his view, what the intended interested party/applicant intended to do was to prosecute substantive private claims within the judicial review proceedings. That being the case, it was procedurally misconceived and inconsistent with the structure and purpose of judicial review under the Fair Administrative Actions, Rules 2024.
7. Mr Shan further deposed that the respondent was capable of defending the legality of its decision, including by relying on complaints or information received from third parties. He stated that it hadn’t been demonstrated that the intended interested party/applicant's involvement was necessary to determine the issues in dispute.
8. The application was also opposed by the respondent vide a replying affidavit sworn on 12th February 2026 by Mr Hussein Agole, an inspector of the respondent. He deposed that the application does not meet the threshold for joinder as stated in the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic & 5 others [2016] eKLR. He deposed that the intended interested party/applicant hadn’t placed any material before the Court that would enable it to exercise its discretion in its favour. It hadn’t demonstrated a proximate or identifiable stake in the proceeding, and what it had provided was merely peripheral and did not concern the judicial Review Proceedings.
9. Mr Agole stated that, after lodging a complaint, the interests of the intended interested party/applicant would be sufficiently represented by the respondent. Therefore, their presence was not required to decide the issues in question. He argued that, instead of aiding the fair resolution of the matter, adding the intended interested party/applicant would muddle the issues and hinder the Court's ability to identify the real disputes.
10. The deponent agreed with the applicant/respondent that judicial review proceedings were concerned with the processes and not the merits of the decision. He urged that the merits of the issues of concern to the intended interested party/applicant were determined by the KIPI and the High Court.
11. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. The submissions of the proposed interested party/applicant are dated 27th February 2026.
12. The intended interested party/applicant counsel contended that it ought to be joined as an interested party as it has a recognizable stake and therefore standing in the matter. counsel urged that the applicant met the test for joinder of an interested party as set out in the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu & another v Republic & 5 others [2016] eKLR.
13. It was urged that the intended interested party/applicant has an identifiable stake insofar as the goods seized by the respondent were branded with the trademark “pasha”, which, in her view, evinced a clearly identifiable and proximate interest.
14. Regarding prejudice they would suffer if there was no joinder, it was urged that the intended interested party/applicant had an interest in the seized goods since its trademark was used and that it would suffer if the Court ordered the said goods to be released to Krish Commodities Ltd. Counsel submitted that there was a clear and present risk that there would thereafter be further infringements of its trademark.
15. Lastly, it was urged that the intended interested party/applicant, if joined as a party, would be submitting that it has a stake in the matter. That would help the Court determine whether the goods were counterfeit and, if not, whether they should be released back to Krish Commodities Ltd.
16. The applicant/respondent’s counsel, on the other hand, filed written submissions dated 10th March 2026. Vide the aid submissions issues for determination were identified as being:-
i. Whether trademark ownership raised by the applicant was within the scope of judicial review; and
ii. Whether the applicant had demonstrated sufficient legal interest to warrant joinder.
17. Counsel submitted that judicial review is predicated on examination of the process by which a public authority reaches a decision rather than the substantive merit of the dispute itself. Reliance was placed on the decision of the Court of Appeal in Biren Amritlal Shah & another v Republic & 3 others [2013] KECA 273 (KLR).
18. It was submitted that the gravamen of the applicant’s case was the ownership of the trademark “pasha”, which had already been adjudicated by KIPI and the High Court. This was contrasted with the judicial review proceedings, which counsel submitted were concerned with whether the respondent lawfully exercised its statutory mandate, complied with the applicable procedural requirements and acted within the bounds of its authority. It was urged that what the intended interested party/applicant was seeking was to convert judicial review proceedings into a civil trademark infringement dispute.
19. Mr Mohamed denied that the test in Francis Karioko Muruatetu had not been met, as it hadn’t been demonstrated that the intended interested party/applicant had a direct, proximate and identifiable legal interest in the issues before the Court, as well as what prejudice it would suffer if not joined. He contended that whatever grievances the applicant had could be pursued by way of civil action; counsel therefore urged that the application be dismissed.
20. The respondent, in brief submissions made by Mr Manwa, holding brief for Mr Adera, urged that it would be relying on the affidavit of Mr Hussein Agole and that it opposes the joinder application.
21. I have considered the matter. The issue I must determine is whether the proposed interested party should be added as a party to these proceedings.
22. I am in agreement with the parties' submissions that an interested party is one who has a recognizable stake and standing in the matter. The Court must thus consider and determine if the applicant meets the requisite test and can be added as a party.
23. The Supreme Court of Kenya set out the applicable test for joinder in the case of Francis Karioko Muruatetu &another v Republic & 5 others [2016]eKLR. The Court stated that:
“37 From the foregoing legal provisions, and from the case law, the following elements emerge as applicable where a party seeks to be enjoined in proceedings as an interested party:
One must move the Court by way of a formal application. Enjoinment is not as of right, but is at the discretion of the Court; hence, sufficient grounds must be laid before the Court, on the basis of the following elements: 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. The prejudice to be suffered by the intended interested party in case of nonjoinder must also be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court. It must also be clearly outlined and not something remote. Lastly, a party must, in its application, set out the case and/or submissions it intends to make before the Court, and demonstrate the relevance of those submissions. It should also demonstrate that these submissions are not merely a replication of what the other parties will be making before the Court.
24. Does the intended interested party/applicant meet the above test? Can a party be added as an interested party in judicial review applications?
25. In my view, a party can be added as an interested party in judicial review proceedings provided the conditions in the Francis Muruatetu case are met. This has been held to be the right legal position in many decisions of the Courts of Records. I therefore do not agree with counsel for the respondent that joinder is not possible.
26. It is true that the intended interested party/applicant has an interest in the trademark “pasha”. The said trademark has been the subject of litigation in KIPI and the High Court. In the matters before the said tribunal and the court, a determination favourable to the intended interested party/applicant was made. That said, the matter before the Court is whether the Anti-Counterfeit Authority acted lawfully in the exercise of its statutory mandate, if it complied with applicable procedural requirements and whether its actions were within the bounds of its authority.
27. The challenge by Krish Commodities is in regard to the procedure used by the respondent and whether its action was lawful.
28. From what I have learned from the application, it would appear to me that the main issue for the applicant is its trademark. The concern of the intended interested party/applicant is merit-based and not founded on a question of process. In my view, the intended interested party/applicant’s interests, as the complainant, are peripheral and not sufficiently proximate.
29. I agree that, having made its complaint, which appears to have resulted in the enforcement action that Krish Commodities Ltd deprecates, its interest would best be served by the respondent. I further agree that, if the intended interested party/applicant were added, there would be a clear and present danger that the judicial review process would be hijacked and turned into a re-litigation of matters KIPI and the High Court had already considered and determined.
30. Further, I see no prejudice the intended interested party/applicant would suffer in any event, if it were not joined. If there is any prejudice in any view, it is remote and not direct.
31. In my view, the application dated 23rd January 2026 has no merit. The same is dismissed with costs.
32. It is so ordered.
Dated and signed this 18th day of March 2026. Delivered virtually through Microsoft TEAMS.