I. Introduction
1. This Honourable Court was called to make a determination unto the Notice of Motion application dated 13 th February, 2026 filed by the 1 st to 15 th Interested Parties herein (Hereinafter referred to as "The Applicants"). The application was brought pursuant to the provisions of Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21, Order 1 Rule 10 (2) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and all other enabling provisions of the law.
2. Upon service, the application was opposed by the Plaintiff. This Court will consider the application, the opposition thereto and the rival written submissions by the parties in seriatim hereinbelow.
II. The Notice of Motion Application dated 13 th February, 2026 by the 1 st to 15 th Interested Parties.
3. The Applicants sought for the following orders:-
a) That this Court be pleased to enjoin Ibrahim Ramadhan Mchechemo, Mwinyihaji Hassan Makenzi, Salimu Mwinyikombo, Hamisi Hamadi Mwadende, Bint Omar Iddi Chuma, Mgeni Shafi, Mohammed Swalehe Dende, Ngozi Bakari Mohamed, Mohamed Hassan Mkondo, Swalehe Shafi Dende, Hassan Ali Mwatendo, Musa Omari Rofiji, Swaleh Athuman Dende, Omari Bakari Kingabwi and Juma Mohamed Lippi as Interested Parties herein; and
b) That costs of this application be provided for.
4. The application is premised on the grounds, testimonial facts and the averments made out under the seven (7) Paragraphed Supporting Affidavit sworn on 13 th February, 2026 by MR. MOHAMMED SWALEHE DENDE, together with annextures marked as “MSD” annexed hereto. He averred as follows that:-
a) He was the 7 th Interested Party conversant with the matters whereby he deposed the affidavit with the authority of his co-Applicants as evidenced by the Authority to Plead annexed thereto and marked as "MSD-1".
b) In summary, the Applicants contended that they, together with their families, were in actual occupation and possession of the suit property, and annexed photographs marked as "MSD - 2" demonstrating homesteads of some of the families and the cultivation and use of the suit property.
c) By virtue of their open occupation and possession of the suit property, they had a stake in these proceedings even though they were not parties to the cause ab initio.
d) They had a demonstrable interest in the subject matter thereof.
e) Further, would be affected by the decision of this Honorable Court when it was made, either way, and that their interest would not be well articulated unless they appear in the proceedings and champion their case.
f) Additionally, the Plaintiff and the Defendants would not suffer any prejudice if they would be joined, as the Court would thereby achieve the ultimate goal of rendering a conclusive determination of the real issues in controversy.
g) The rules of natural justice dictate that all parties had a right to be heard.
III. The responses to the Application -the Grounds Of opposition dated 4 th May, 2026
5. Upon being served with the application, the Plaintiff opposed it vide the Grounds of Opposition dated 4 th May, 2026 brought under the provisions of Order 51 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21, Section 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011 and the Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, on the following grounds that:-
a. The application was bad in law, grossly misplaced, lacking in merits and otherwise an abuse of the due process of the Court.
b. The Proposed Interested Parties had no interest in the suit property as alleged or at all;
c. The orders sought in the Notice of Motion application could not be granted as sought or at all;
d. The Proposed Interested Parties’ family (ies) had claims against the Matriarchs of the 1 st to the 9 th Defendants’ families wherein the decisions were made in favour of the former and thus the action to come into the case was a backdoor approach to revive that which was already decided; and
e. The application herein had no basis and thus ought to be forthwith dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.
IV. Further Affidavit the Applicants
6. In rejoinder to the said Grounds of Opposition, the Applicants filed a 16 Paragraphed Further Affidavit sworn on 28 th May, 2026 by the said Mr. Mohammed Swalehe Dende. He averred as follows that:-
f. He was the Applicant/7 th Interested Party herein. He was well conversant with the matters arising herein and had been duly authorized to swear this Affidavit with authority of the other Interested Parties. Annexed hereto and marked as “MSD – 1” was a copy of the Authority to Plead.
g. He had read and understood the contents of the Grounds of Opposition dated 4 th May, 2026.
h. He had the nature and intent of it fully explained to him by his Advocates on record and having understood the import thereof, he wish to respond as hereunder.
i. The 1 st to 15 th Interested Parties together with their families had continuously occupied and possessed and been in actual occupation of the suit property since the year 1960. Their occupation had at all material times been open, notorious, exclusive to the exclusion of the registered proprietors and their successors, peaceful, continuous for a period exceeding twelve and adverse to the title of the registered proprietors.
j. The particulars of their occupation include permanent dwellings, cultivation and farming, grazing of livestock, boundaries and demarcation and the ,Chief, Assistant Chief, elders and neighbours of Ng'ombeni had at all times recognised their families as the actual occupiers of the suit property.
k. The 2 nd , 4 th , 10 th and 7 th Interested Parties together with 11 others had previously instituted ELC No. 6 of 2015 (OS) at the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa in which they had sued Mama Hasina Mohamed, Kibibi M Khamis, Fatuma Mwinyi Mwakutema, Amina Salimu Mwacharo and Rukia Salimu Mwacharo (all deceased) as the Defendants.
l. In furtherance to the above and contrary to the Plaintiff's assertion at Paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Opposition, the suit was not determined on its merits.
m. He verily believe to be true that the Ruling dated 22 nd April, 2020 stated that the order to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution was set aside and substituted with the order that this suit had abated under the provisions of Order 24 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 because all the registered proprietors had died before the date on which the Notice to Show Cause came up for hearing. Annexed hereto was a copy of the Ruling dated 22 nd April, 2020.
n. Additionally, he had been advised by his Advocates on record whose advice he verily believe to be true that abatement was a procedural conclusion arising from the death of parties.
o. Abatement of the Mombasa Suit was not a determination of the substantive doctrine of adverse possession. Whether the interested parties had been in adverse possession for the requisite period was never investigated, heard, or pronounced upon by the learned Judge in that prior suit.
p. He verily believe to be true that the present proceedings are in any event materially different to wit, the registered proprietor against whom relief is sought was now the Plaintiff not the deceased matriarchs whose estates were sued in year 2015, the cause of action arose out of, and was brought against the Plaintiff who purchased the suit property and some of the Interested Parties were not parties to ELC No. 6 of 2015 and whose own occupation was independently asserted.
q. He verily believe to be true that the Plaintiff claims to had acquired Kwale/Ng'ombeni/ 1104 by way of an agreement said to have been executed in or about the year 2014 with the personal representatives of the deceased matriarchs. The Plaintiff represented the 2 nd and 5 th Respondents in ELC No. 6 of 2015 and therefore had direct and actual knowledge that the suit property was under a long-standing adverse possession claim by his fellow Interested Parties and their families.
r. He could not now be heard to assert that he was a bona fide purchaser without notice of their overriding interest in the land.
s. Without prejudice to the above, he verily believe to be true that the validity of the sale agreement was the subject of dispute between the Plaintiff and the 1st to 9 th Defendants, including allegations of forgery and a live investigation by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, as the papers in this very suit demonstrate. Annexed hereto and marked as “MSD – 3” was a copy of the Ruling dated 22 nd October, 2024.
t. He had been advised by his Advocates on record whose advice he verily believe to be true that where an Applicant deposes to facts in a Supporting Affidavit and the Respondent elected to file only Grounds of Opposition without controverting those facts sworn evidence, the factual averments stood admitted.
u. The factual averments in the Supporting Affidavit dated 13 th February, 2026 had not been controverted. Likewise, the alleged Grounds of Opposition dated 4 th May, 2026 was not points of law but facts which could not stand because they were not deposed by way of affidavit as required.
v. He verily believe to be true that the Application dated 13 th February, 2026 was therefore not opposed on the basis of any grounds of law or facts because the Plaintiff and the Defendants had not denied that they were in occupation and possession of the suit property which ought to had been controverted vide a Replying Affidavit.
w. He reiterated that the Mombasa suit was not determined on its merits because abatement addresses the legal status of the parties rather than the facts of the dispute and Paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Opposition was unfounded and moreover, the parties and the cause of action was materially different.
x. He verily believe to be true that the Interested Parties had an immediate, direct and substantial interest in the parcel number Kwale/Ng'ombeni/1104, which interest could not be properly determined in this suit unless they were joined as parties.
yz. Without such joinder, this Honourable Court could not effectually and completely adjudicate upon the controversies surrounding the suit property and any orders issued would be made in their absence and to their prejudice
. It was therefore in the interests of justice that this Honourable Court allowed the Application dated 13 th February, 2025 with costs to the Interested Parties.
. What was deponed hereinabove was true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
V. Submissions
7. While all the parties were present in Court, the Court directed that the Notice of Motion application be canvassed by way of written submissions. Pursuant to that, the Applicants filed their written submissions dated 28 th May, 2026 through the Law firm of Messrs. Chimera Kamotho & Company Advocates LLP.
8. By the time of penning down its Ruling, the Honourable Court had not been able to access the Submissions by the Plaintiff from neither the Judiciary CTS Portal nor the ELC registry. Hence, Honourable Court relied on the filed pleadings and deliver its Rulings on its merits accordingly.
A. The Written Submissions by the 1 st to 15 th Interested Parties/Applicants.
9. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants distilled two (2) issues for determination, namely: whether the application was merited; and who should bear the costs of the application. On the first issue, the Learned Counsel submitted that the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 aimed at the Courts avoiding multiplicity of suits and ensuring the conclusive determination of the real questions in controversy. The Learned Counsel urged the Court to be guided by the case of:- “ Ntiyiani & Another – Versus - Meritei; Kalicha (Interested Party) [2026] KEELC 2979 (KLR)” , which relied on the decision of the Supreme Court of Kenya in the case of: “ Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance – Versus - Mumo Matemu & 5 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 12 of 2013, [2014] eKLR” , on the definition of an Interested Party, and on the threshold elements set out by the Supreme Court in the case of:- “ Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another – Versus - Republic & 5 Others [2016] eKLR” , as supplemented by the guiding principles in the case of: “ Kingori – Versus - Chege & 3 Others [2002] 2 KLR 243” .
10. The Learned Counsel submitted that the Applicants were in actual occupation and possession of the suit property as depicted by the annexure marked as "MSD - 2" to the Supporting Affidavit, and that the occupation was further evidenced by “ Mombasa ELC No. 6 of 2015 (O.S.)” , in which some of the Interested Parties had instituted an adverse possession claim against the Defendants’ matriarchs. The Counsel further averred that the Applicants’ actual occupation constitutes an overriding interest under the provision of Section 28 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012, which bound any registered proprietor of the suit property, and that any person purchasing the suit property in or after the year 2014, and who carried out due diligence including visiting the suit property, would had seen the Applicants’ open and notorious occupation thereof. Reliance was placed on the Ruling of the Hon. Lady Justice A. E. Dena dated 22 nd October, 2024, which noted that the validity of the Plaintiff’s purchase was contested on grounds of forgery of signatures, that criminal proceedings were ongoing, and that these issues could only be ascertained through adducing “Viva Voce” evidence.
11. The Learned Counsel further asserted that where an Applicant deposed to facts in a supporting affidavit and the Respondent elects to file only Grounds of Opposition without controverting those facts by sworn evidence, the factual averments stood admitted. In support thereof, the Learned Counsel relied on the cases of:- “ Watuthu & 2 Others – Versus - State Department for Housing & 5 Others (Petition E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1234 (KLR) (26 February 2026) (Ruling)” and “ Omungala – Versus - Nestle Kenya Limited [2020] eKLR” . The Learned Counsel opined that the abatement of the Mombasa suit was a procedural conclusion arising from the death of parties and not a determination of the substantive doctrine of claimed land adverse possession, and that the present proceedings was in any event materially different.
12. Thus, in conclusion, the Learned Counsel held that if the Applicants was not enjoined, they would suffer prejudice. As a determination of the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants without their participation would directly determine the fate of the land on which they live with their families, in residences and on farms long occupied, and they would be bound by a result reached without them.
13. On the issue of costs. The Counsel relied on the cases of “ Republic – Versus - Rosemary Wairimu Munene”, “Ex - Parte Applicant Ihururu Dairy Farmers Co - operative Society Limited, Judicial Review No. 6 of 2014” and “ Cecilia Karuru Ngayu – Versus - Barclays Bank of Kenya & Another [2016] eKLR” on the general principle that costs follow the event, and urged the Court to allow the application with costs to the Applicants.
B. The Written Submissions by the Plaintiff
VI. Analysis and Determination
14. This Honorable Court has keenly considered the Notice of Motion application dated 13 th February, 2026, the Supporting and Further Affidavits thereto together with all the annexures thereof, the Grounds of Opposition dated 4th May, 2026, the written submissions by the Applicants, the cited authorities and the relevant provisions of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and the law.
15. In order to arrive at a just, fair, reasonable and informed decision, the Court has framed the following three (3) salient issues for its determination.
a) Whether the Grounds of Opposition dated 4 th May, 2026 filed by the Plaintiff are competent to controvert the factual averments contained in the Supporting and Further Affidavits by the Applicants;
b) Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 13 th February, 2026 by the 1 st to 15 th Interested Parties/Applicants is merited for being enjoined into these proceedings; and
c) Who should bear the costs of the application.
ISSUE No. a) Whether the Grounds of Opposition dated 4 th May, 2026 filed by the Plaintiff are competent to controvert the factual averments contained in the Supporting and Further Affidavits by the Applicants.
16. Prior to embarking on the analysis under this sub – heading, the Honourable Court wishes to extrapolate on the brief background facts of this case herein for ease of reference herein. The Plaintiff instituted this suit against the Defendants over all that piece or parcel of land known as Title Number Kwale/Ng’ombeni/1104 - "the suit property"). The Plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property in or about the year 2014 from the personal representatives of five deceased matriarchs at a consideration of Kenya Shillings Fifty Seven Million, One Hundred and Twenty Thousand (Kshs. 57,120,000.00) and to be its current registered proprietor.
17. The record further discloses that the validity of the said sale agreement is hotly contested as between the Plaintiff and the 1 st to 9 th Defendants, including on allegations of forgery of signatures and a pending investigation by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations. Indeed, in the Ruling delivered on 22 nd October, 2024 by my sister, the Hon. Lady Justice A. E. Dena, this Honorable Court declined to grant the injunctive and stay orders sought by the Plaintiff and instead issued orders of status quo over the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the suit, upon holding that the emerging issues, key among them the validity of the land sale agreement, could only be ascertained through adducing of “Viva Voce” evidence at the trial.
18. It is against that backdrop that the Applicants have now approached this Honorable Court seeking to be enjoined into these proceedings as Interested Parties. That is adequate on facts.
19. Now turning to the issues under this sub-heading. First and fore most, the Court wishes to interrogate the mode of opposition adopted by the Plaintiff. It is trite law, under the provision of Order 51 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 provides as follows:-
Order 51 Rule 14 (1) – Any Respondent who wishes to oppose any application may file any one or a combination of the following documents:
a) A Notice Preliminary Objection; and/or;
b) Replying Affidavit; and/or
c) A Statement of Grounds of Opposition
( 2 ) The said documents in sub – rule ( 1 ) and a list of authorities, if any shall be filed and served on the Applicant not less than three clear days before the date of hearing.
(3). Any Applicant upon whom a Replying Affidavit or Statement of Grounds of Opposition has been served under sub – rule ( 1 ) may with the leave of the Court, file a Supplementary Affidavit.
(4) If a Respondent fails to comply with sub – rule ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) the application may be heard “Ex – Parte”
20. Legally speaking, the Grounds of Opposition, being in the nature of a demurrer, ought to raise pure points of law only. They are not a vehicle for contesting facts. The classical exposition of what constitutes a pure point of law was rendered by the Court of Appeal (as it then was) in the celebrated and “Classicus Locus” case of:- “ Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Limited – Versus - West End Distributors Limited (1969) EA 696” , where the Learned Judges held “ inter alia” that a preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings, and which, if argued as a preliminary point, may dispose of the suit, and further that a preliminary objection cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained.
21. Applying the above legal principle “Mutatis Mutandis” to Grounds of Opposition, based on the above provision of Order 51 Rule 14 of the Rules, it follows that where a party elects to oppose an application supported by sworn affidavit evidence by way of Grounds of Opposition only, without filing any Replying Affidavit, the factual averments deposed to in the supporting affidavit remain uncontroverted. The Grounds of Opposition cannot serve as a substitute for sworn evidence on contested matters of fact.
22. This position resonates with the holding in the case of:- “ Omungala – Versus - Nestle Kenya Limited [2020] eKLR” , cited by the Applicants, where the Court held thus:-
"The claimant never swore any affidavit to oppose the application. It follows that the factual averments by the applicant in the supporting affidavit have not been controverted. Likewise, the alleged grounds of opposition filed on 1.11.2019 are not points of law but facts which cannot stand because they were not deposed by way of affidavit as required. The application is therefore not opposed on the basis of any grounds of law or facts."
23. Similarly, in the case of:- “ Watuthu & 2 Others – Versus - State Department for Housing & 5 Others (Petition E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1234 (KLR)”, the Court observed that the Grounds of Opposition filed by the Respondents therein had not in any way controverted the facts tabled by the Petitioners.
24. Turning to the instant application, upon a careful scrutiny of the Grounds of Opposition dated 4 th May, 2026, the Court finds that Grounds 1, 3 and 6 thereof are mere general conclusions bereft of any legal reasoning. Ground 2 thereof, to the effect that the proposed Interested Parties have no interest in the suit property as alleged or at all, is a contestation of fact, and not a point of law. Likewise, Ground 4 thereof, to the effect that the proposed Interested Parties’ families had claims against the matriarchs of the 1 st to 9 th Defendants’ families wherein the decisions were made in favour of the former and thus the action is a backdoor approach to revive that which was already decided, is quintessentially a factual assertion which required to be established by way of sworn evidence, annexing the alleged decisions. No such evidence was placed before this Court.
25. To the contrary, and rather paradoxically, it is the Applicants themselves who placed before the Court the Ruling delivered on 22 nd April, 2020 by the Hon. Mr. Justice Munyao Sila in Mombasa ELC No. 6 of 2015 (O.S.), from which it is plainly evident that the said suit was never heard nor determined on its merits, but rather marked as having abated under the provisions of Order 24 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 all the Respondents therein having died. The factual substratum of Ground 4 of the Grounds of Opposition is thus not borne out by the record.
26. In the premises, the Court finds and holds that the Grounds of Opposition dated 4 th May, 2026, to the extent that they seek to controvert the sworn factual averments of the Applicants on occupation and possession of the suit property, are incompetent for that purpose. The factual averments contained in the Supporting Affidavit sworn on 13 th February, 2026 and the Further Affidavit sworn on 28 th May, 2026 stand uncontroverted. That notwithstanding, the ultimate burden remains on the Applicants to demonstrate to the satisfaction of this Court that they meet the legal threshold for joinder as Interested Parties, an issue to which the Court now turns to for its determination.
ISSUE No. a). Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 13 th February, 2026 by the 1 st to 15 th Interested Parties/Applicants is merited for being enjoined into these proceedings
27. Under this sub–title, the main issue herein is whether this Honourable Court should grant leave to join the 1 st to 15 th Interested Parties as parties to the proceedings, either as Defendants, Interested Parties, or Amicus Curiae, pursuant to Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
28. On the issue of joinder, The Black’s Law Dictionary defines “Interested Party” as:-
“A party who has a recognizable stake (and therefore standing) in a matter.”
29. The stating point on the joinder is Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, which states 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 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. ” [Emphasis mine]
30. This provision empowers the Court, at any stage of the proceedings, to order that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added. The discretion is wide but must be exercised judiciously.
31. This statutory discretion is reinforced by the provision of Article 159 (2)(b) and (d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which obliges courts to ensure justice is not delayed and to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities. Thus, the Constitution elevates substantive justice above rigid adherence to form, ensuring that courts are not constrained by technical omissions when the real issues in controversy demand full participation of all necessary parties.
32. With the passage of time, the High Court has expansively deliberated on this jurisprudence. Hence, this Court will not be re – inventing the wheel. It will proceed to make reference to just but a few of the precedents. To begin with, the case of:- “Kingori – Versus - Chege & 3 Others [2002] 2 KLR 243 ” the court provided the following guiding principles for joinder of a party to a suit:
a. He must be a necessary party.
b. He must be a proper party.
c. In the case of the Defendant there must be a relief flowing from that Defendant to the Plaintiff.
d. The ultimate order or decree cannot be enforced without his presence in the matter.
e. His presence is necessary to enable the Court effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.
33. Similarly, in the case of:- “Meme – Versus - Republic, [2004] 1 EA 124” , the High Court observed that a party could be enjoined in a matter for the reasons that:-
i. Joinder of a person because his presence will result in the complete settlement of all the question involved in the proceedings;
ii. Joinder to provide protection for the rights of a party who would otherwise be adversely affected in law;
iii. Joinder to prevent a likely course of proliferated litigation.
34. Further, in the case of:- “Departed Asians Property Custodian Board – Versus - Jaffer Brothers Limited [1999] 1 EA 55” , the Court held that:-
“A clear distinction is called for between joining a party who ought to have been joined as a defendant and one whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. A party may be joined in a suit, not because there is a cause of action against it, but because that party’s presence is necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the cause or matter…For a person to be joined on the ground that his presence in the suit is necessary for effectual and complete settlement of all questions in the suit one of two things has to be shown. Either it has to be shown that the orders, which the Plaintiff seeks in the suit, would legally affect the interests of that person, and that it is desirable, for the avoidance of multiplicity of suits, to have such a person joined so that he is bound by the decision of the Court in that suit. Alternatively, a person qualifies, (on an application of a Defendant) to be joined as a co-defendant, where it is shown that the defendant cannot effectually set a defence he desires to set up unless that person is joined in it, or unless the order to be made is to bind that person.”
35. Additionally, in the case of:- “Civicon Limited – Versus - Kivuwatt Limited and 2 Others [2015] eKLR” the court observed as follows:
“Again the power given under the Rules is discretionary which discretion must be exercised judicially. The objective of these Rules is to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter, so that the dispute may be determined in their presence at the time without any protraction, or inconvenience and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Thus, any party reasonably affected by the pending litigation is a necessary and proper party, and should be enjoined…from the foregoing, it may be concluded that being a discretionary order, the court may allow the joinder of a party as a defendant in a suit based on the general principles set out in Order I rule 10 (2) bearing in mind the unique circumstances of each case with regard to the necessity of the party in the determination of the subject matter of the suit, any direct prejudice likely to be suffered by the party and the practicability of the execution of the order sought in the suit, in the event that the plaintiff should succeed. We may add that all that a party needs to do is to demonstrate sufficient interest in the suit, and the interest need not be the kind that must succeed at the end of the trial.”
36. Additionally, the principle was echoed in case of:- “Mukira & 2 Ot
[...truncated]
1. This Honourable Court was called to make a determination unto the Notice of Motion application dated 13 th February, 2026 filed by the 1 st to 15 th Interested Parties herein (Hereinafter referred to as "The Applicants"). The application was brought pursuant to the provisions of Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21, Order 1 Rule 10 (2) and Order 51 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 and all other enabling provisions of the law.
2. Upon service, the application was opposed by the Plaintiff. This Court will consider the application, the opposition thereto and the rival written submissions by the parties in seriatim hereinbelow.
II. The Notice of Motion Application dated 13 th February, 2026 by the 1 st to 15 th Interested Parties.
3. The Applicants sought for the following orders:-
a) That this Court be pleased to enjoin Ibrahim Ramadhan Mchechemo, Mwinyihaji Hassan Makenzi, Salimu Mwinyikombo, Hamisi Hamadi Mwadende, Bint Omar Iddi Chuma, Mgeni Shafi, Mohammed Swalehe Dende, Ngozi Bakari Mohamed, Mohamed Hassan Mkondo, Swalehe Shafi Dende, Hassan Ali Mwatendo, Musa Omari Rofiji, Swaleh Athuman Dende, Omari Bakari Kingabwi and Juma Mohamed Lippi as Interested Parties herein; and
b) That costs of this application be provided for.
4. The application is premised on the grounds, testimonial facts and the averments made out under the seven (7) Paragraphed Supporting Affidavit sworn on 13 th February, 2026 by MR. MOHAMMED SWALEHE DENDE, together with annextures marked as “MSD” annexed hereto. He averred as follows that:-
a) He was the 7 th Interested Party conversant with the matters whereby he deposed the affidavit with the authority of his co-Applicants as evidenced by the Authority to Plead annexed thereto and marked as "MSD-1".
b) In summary, the Applicants contended that they, together with their families, were in actual occupation and possession of the suit property, and annexed photographs marked as "MSD - 2" demonstrating homesteads of some of the families and the cultivation and use of the suit property.
c) By virtue of their open occupation and possession of the suit property, they had a stake in these proceedings even though they were not parties to the cause ab initio.
d) They had a demonstrable interest in the subject matter thereof.
e) Further, would be affected by the decision of this Honorable Court when it was made, either way, and that their interest would not be well articulated unless they appear in the proceedings and champion their case.
f) Additionally, the Plaintiff and the Defendants would not suffer any prejudice if they would be joined, as the Court would thereby achieve the ultimate goal of rendering a conclusive determination of the real issues in controversy.
g) The rules of natural justice dictate that all parties had a right to be heard.
III. The responses to the Application -the Grounds Of opposition dated 4 th May, 2026
5. Upon being served with the application, the Plaintiff opposed it vide the Grounds of Opposition dated 4 th May, 2026 brought under the provisions of Order 51 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21, Section 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011 and the Articles 50 and 159 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, on the following grounds that:-
a. The application was bad in law, grossly misplaced, lacking in merits and otherwise an abuse of the due process of the Court.
b. The Proposed Interested Parties had no interest in the suit property as alleged or at all;
c. The orders sought in the Notice of Motion application could not be granted as sought or at all;
d. The Proposed Interested Parties’ family (ies) had claims against the Matriarchs of the 1 st to the 9 th Defendants’ families wherein the decisions were made in favour of the former and thus the action to come into the case was a backdoor approach to revive that which was already decided; and
e. The application herein had no basis and thus ought to be forthwith dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.
IV. Further Affidavit the Applicants
6. In rejoinder to the said Grounds of Opposition, the Applicants filed a 16 Paragraphed Further Affidavit sworn on 28 th May, 2026 by the said Mr. Mohammed Swalehe Dende. He averred as follows that:-
f. He was the Applicant/7 th Interested Party herein. He was well conversant with the matters arising herein and had been duly authorized to swear this Affidavit with authority of the other Interested Parties. Annexed hereto and marked as “MSD – 1” was a copy of the Authority to Plead.
g. He had read and understood the contents of the Grounds of Opposition dated 4 th May, 2026.
h. He had the nature and intent of it fully explained to him by his Advocates on record and having understood the import thereof, he wish to respond as hereunder.
i. The 1 st to 15 th Interested Parties together with their families had continuously occupied and possessed and been in actual occupation of the suit property since the year 1960. Their occupation had at all material times been open, notorious, exclusive to the exclusion of the registered proprietors and their successors, peaceful, continuous for a period exceeding twelve and adverse to the title of the registered proprietors.
j. The particulars of their occupation include permanent dwellings, cultivation and farming, grazing of livestock, boundaries and demarcation and the ,Chief, Assistant Chief, elders and neighbours of Ng'ombeni had at all times recognised their families as the actual occupiers of the suit property.
k. The 2 nd , 4 th , 10 th and 7 th Interested Parties together with 11 others had previously instituted ELC No. 6 of 2015 (OS) at the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa in which they had sued Mama Hasina Mohamed, Kibibi M Khamis, Fatuma Mwinyi Mwakutema, Amina Salimu Mwacharo and Rukia Salimu Mwacharo (all deceased) as the Defendants.
l. In furtherance to the above and contrary to the Plaintiff's assertion at Paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Opposition, the suit was not determined on its merits.
m. He verily believe to be true that the Ruling dated 22 nd April, 2020 stated that the order to dismiss the suit for want of prosecution was set aside and substituted with the order that this suit had abated under the provisions of Order 24 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 because all the registered proprietors had died before the date on which the Notice to Show Cause came up for hearing. Annexed hereto was a copy of the Ruling dated 22 nd April, 2020.
n. Additionally, he had been advised by his Advocates on record whose advice he verily believe to be true that abatement was a procedural conclusion arising from the death of parties.
o. Abatement of the Mombasa Suit was not a determination of the substantive doctrine of adverse possession. Whether the interested parties had been in adverse possession for the requisite period was never investigated, heard, or pronounced upon by the learned Judge in that prior suit.
p. He verily believe to be true that the present proceedings are in any event materially different to wit, the registered proprietor against whom relief is sought was now the Plaintiff not the deceased matriarchs whose estates were sued in year 2015, the cause of action arose out of, and was brought against the Plaintiff who purchased the suit property and some of the Interested Parties were not parties to ELC No. 6 of 2015 and whose own occupation was independently asserted.
q. He verily believe to be true that the Plaintiff claims to had acquired Kwale/Ng'ombeni/ 1104 by way of an agreement said to have been executed in or about the year 2014 with the personal representatives of the deceased matriarchs. The Plaintiff represented the 2 nd and 5 th Respondents in ELC No. 6 of 2015 and therefore had direct and actual knowledge that the suit property was under a long-standing adverse possession claim by his fellow Interested Parties and their families.
r. He could not now be heard to assert that he was a bona fide purchaser without notice of their overriding interest in the land.
s. Without prejudice to the above, he verily believe to be true that the validity of the sale agreement was the subject of dispute between the Plaintiff and the 1st to 9 th Defendants, including allegations of forgery and a live investigation by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations, as the papers in this very suit demonstrate. Annexed hereto and marked as “MSD – 3” was a copy of the Ruling dated 22 nd October, 2024.
t. He had been advised by his Advocates on record whose advice he verily believe to be true that where an Applicant deposes to facts in a Supporting Affidavit and the Respondent elected to file only Grounds of Opposition without controverting those facts sworn evidence, the factual averments stood admitted.
u. The factual averments in the Supporting Affidavit dated 13 th February, 2026 had not been controverted. Likewise, the alleged Grounds of Opposition dated 4 th May, 2026 was not points of law but facts which could not stand because they were not deposed by way of affidavit as required.
v. He verily believe to be true that the Application dated 13 th February, 2026 was therefore not opposed on the basis of any grounds of law or facts because the Plaintiff and the Defendants had not denied that they were in occupation and possession of the suit property which ought to had been controverted vide a Replying Affidavit.
w. He reiterated that the Mombasa suit was not determined on its merits because abatement addresses the legal status of the parties rather than the facts of the dispute and Paragraph 4 of the Grounds of Opposition was unfounded and moreover, the parties and the cause of action was materially different.
x. He verily believe to be true that the Interested Parties had an immediate, direct and substantial interest in the parcel number Kwale/Ng'ombeni/1104, which interest could not be properly determined in this suit unless they were joined as parties.
yz. Without such joinder, this Honourable Court could not effectually and completely adjudicate upon the controversies surrounding the suit property and any orders issued would be made in their absence and to their prejudice
. It was therefore in the interests of justice that this Honourable Court allowed the Application dated 13 th February, 2025 with costs to the Interested Parties.
. What was deponed hereinabove was true to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
V. Submissions
7. While all the parties were present in Court, the Court directed that the Notice of Motion application be canvassed by way of written submissions. Pursuant to that, the Applicants filed their written submissions dated 28 th May, 2026 through the Law firm of Messrs. Chimera Kamotho & Company Advocates LLP.
8. By the time of penning down its Ruling, the Honourable Court had not been able to access the Submissions by the Plaintiff from neither the Judiciary CTS Portal nor the ELC registry. Hence, Honourable Court relied on the filed pleadings and deliver its Rulings on its merits accordingly.
A. The Written Submissions by the 1 st to 15 th Interested Parties/Applicants.
9. The Learned Counsel for the Applicants distilled two (2) issues for determination, namely: whether the application was merited; and who should bear the costs of the application. On the first issue, the Learned Counsel submitted that the provision of Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 aimed at the Courts avoiding multiplicity of suits and ensuring the conclusive determination of the real questions in controversy. The Learned Counsel urged the Court to be guided by the case of:- “ Ntiyiani & Another – Versus - Meritei; Kalicha (Interested Party) [2026] KEELC 2979 (KLR)” , which relied on the decision of the Supreme Court of Kenya in the case of: “ Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance – Versus - Mumo Matemu & 5 Others, Supreme Court Petition No. 12 of 2013, [2014] eKLR” , on the definition of an Interested Party, and on the threshold elements set out by the Supreme Court in the case of:- “ Francis Karioki Muruatetu & Another – Versus - Republic & 5 Others [2016] eKLR” , as supplemented by the guiding principles in the case of: “ Kingori – Versus - Chege & 3 Others [2002] 2 KLR 243” .
10. The Learned Counsel submitted that the Applicants were in actual occupation and possession of the suit property as depicted by the annexure marked as "MSD - 2" to the Supporting Affidavit, and that the occupation was further evidenced by “ Mombasa ELC No. 6 of 2015 (O.S.)” , in which some of the Interested Parties had instituted an adverse possession claim against the Defendants’ matriarchs. The Counsel further averred that the Applicants’ actual occupation constitutes an overriding interest under the provision of Section 28 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012, which bound any registered proprietor of the suit property, and that any person purchasing the suit property in or after the year 2014, and who carried out due diligence including visiting the suit property, would had seen the Applicants’ open and notorious occupation thereof. Reliance was placed on the Ruling of the Hon. Lady Justice A. E. Dena dated 22 nd October, 2024, which noted that the validity of the Plaintiff’s purchase was contested on grounds of forgery of signatures, that criminal proceedings were ongoing, and that these issues could only be ascertained through adducing “Viva Voce” evidence.
11. The Learned Counsel further asserted that where an Applicant deposed to facts in a supporting affidavit and the Respondent elects to file only Grounds of Opposition without controverting those facts by sworn evidence, the factual averments stood admitted. In support thereof, the Learned Counsel relied on the cases of:- “ Watuthu & 2 Others – Versus - State Department for Housing & 5 Others (Petition E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1234 (KLR) (26 February 2026) (Ruling)” and “ Omungala – Versus - Nestle Kenya Limited [2020] eKLR” . The Learned Counsel opined that the abatement of the Mombasa suit was a procedural conclusion arising from the death of parties and not a determination of the substantive doctrine of claimed land adverse possession, and that the present proceedings was in any event materially different.
12. Thus, in conclusion, the Learned Counsel held that if the Applicants was not enjoined, they would suffer prejudice. As a determination of the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendants without their participation would directly determine the fate of the land on which they live with their families, in residences and on farms long occupied, and they would be bound by a result reached without them.
13. On the issue of costs. The Counsel relied on the cases of “ Republic – Versus - Rosemary Wairimu Munene”, “Ex - Parte Applicant Ihururu Dairy Farmers Co - operative Society Limited, Judicial Review No. 6 of 2014” and “ Cecilia Karuru Ngayu – Versus - Barclays Bank of Kenya & Another [2016] eKLR” on the general principle that costs follow the event, and urged the Court to allow the application with costs to the Applicants.
B. The Written Submissions by the Plaintiff
VI. Analysis and Determination
14. This Honorable Court has keenly considered the Notice of Motion application dated 13 th February, 2026, the Supporting and Further Affidavits thereto together with all the annexures thereof, the Grounds of Opposition dated 4th May, 2026, the written submissions by the Applicants, the cited authorities and the relevant provisions of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and the law.
15. In order to arrive at a just, fair, reasonable and informed decision, the Court has framed the following three (3) salient issues for its determination.
a) Whether the Grounds of Opposition dated 4 th May, 2026 filed by the Plaintiff are competent to controvert the factual averments contained in the Supporting and Further Affidavits by the Applicants;
b) Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 13 th February, 2026 by the 1 st to 15 th Interested Parties/Applicants is merited for being enjoined into these proceedings; and
c) Who should bear the costs of the application.
ISSUE No. a) Whether the Grounds of Opposition dated 4 th May, 2026 filed by the Plaintiff are competent to controvert the factual averments contained in the Supporting and Further Affidavits by the Applicants.
16. Prior to embarking on the analysis under this sub – heading, the Honourable Court wishes to extrapolate on the brief background facts of this case herein for ease of reference herein. The Plaintiff instituted this suit against the Defendants over all that piece or parcel of land known as Title Number Kwale/Ng’ombeni/1104 - "the suit property"). The Plaintiff claims to have purchased the suit property in or about the year 2014 from the personal representatives of five deceased matriarchs at a consideration of Kenya Shillings Fifty Seven Million, One Hundred and Twenty Thousand (Kshs. 57,120,000.00) and to be its current registered proprietor.
17. The record further discloses that the validity of the said sale agreement is hotly contested as between the Plaintiff and the 1 st to 9 th Defendants, including on allegations of forgery of signatures and a pending investigation by the Directorate of Criminal Investigations. Indeed, in the Ruling delivered on 22 nd October, 2024 by my sister, the Hon. Lady Justice A. E. Dena, this Honorable Court declined to grant the injunctive and stay orders sought by the Plaintiff and instead issued orders of status quo over the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the suit, upon holding that the emerging issues, key among them the validity of the land sale agreement, could only be ascertained through adducing of “Viva Voce” evidence at the trial.
18. It is against that backdrop that the Applicants have now approached this Honorable Court seeking to be enjoined into these proceedings as Interested Parties. That is adequate on facts.
19. Now turning to the issues under this sub-heading. First and fore most, the Court wishes to interrogate the mode of opposition adopted by the Plaintiff. It is trite law, under the provision of Order 51 Rule 14 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 provides as follows:-
Order 51 Rule 14 (1) – Any Respondent who wishes to oppose any application may file any one or a combination of the following documents:
a) A Notice Preliminary Objection; and/or;
b) Replying Affidavit; and/or
c) A Statement of Grounds of Opposition
( 2 ) The said documents in sub – rule ( 1 ) and a list of authorities, if any shall be filed and served on the Applicant not less than three clear days before the date of hearing.
(3). Any Applicant upon whom a Replying Affidavit or Statement of Grounds of Opposition has been served under sub – rule ( 1 ) may with the leave of the Court, file a Supplementary Affidavit.
(4) If a Respondent fails to comply with sub – rule ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) the application may be heard “Ex – Parte”
20. Legally speaking, the Grounds of Opposition, being in the nature of a demurrer, ought to raise pure points of law only. They are not a vehicle for contesting facts. The classical exposition of what constitutes a pure point of law was rendered by the Court of Appeal (as it then was) in the celebrated and “Classicus Locus” case of:- “ Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Limited – Versus - West End Distributors Limited (1969) EA 696” , where the Learned Judges held “ inter alia” that a preliminary objection consists of a point of law which has been pleaded, or which arises by clear implication out of pleadings, and which, if argued as a preliminary point, may dispose of the suit, and further that a preliminary objection cannot be raised if any fact has to be ascertained.
21. Applying the above legal principle “Mutatis Mutandis” to Grounds of Opposition, based on the above provision of Order 51 Rule 14 of the Rules, it follows that where a party elects to oppose an application supported by sworn affidavit evidence by way of Grounds of Opposition only, without filing any Replying Affidavit, the factual averments deposed to in the supporting affidavit remain uncontroverted. The Grounds of Opposition cannot serve as a substitute for sworn evidence on contested matters of fact.
22. This position resonates with the holding in the case of:- “ Omungala – Versus - Nestle Kenya Limited [2020] eKLR” , cited by the Applicants, where the Court held thus:-
"The claimant never swore any affidavit to oppose the application. It follows that the factual averments by the applicant in the supporting affidavit have not been controverted. Likewise, the alleged grounds of opposition filed on 1.11.2019 are not points of law but facts which cannot stand because they were not deposed by way of affidavit as required. The application is therefore not opposed on the basis of any grounds of law or facts."
23. Similarly, in the case of:- “ Watuthu & 2 Others – Versus - State Department for Housing & 5 Others (Petition E001 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1234 (KLR)”, the Court observed that the Grounds of Opposition filed by the Respondents therein had not in any way controverted the facts tabled by the Petitioners.
24. Turning to the instant application, upon a careful scrutiny of the Grounds of Opposition dated 4 th May, 2026, the Court finds that Grounds 1, 3 and 6 thereof are mere general conclusions bereft of any legal reasoning. Ground 2 thereof, to the effect that the proposed Interested Parties have no interest in the suit property as alleged or at all, is a contestation of fact, and not a point of law. Likewise, Ground 4 thereof, to the effect that the proposed Interested Parties’ families had claims against the matriarchs of the 1 st to 9 th Defendants’ families wherein the decisions were made in favour of the former and thus the action is a backdoor approach to revive that which was already decided, is quintessentially a factual assertion which required to be established by way of sworn evidence, annexing the alleged decisions. No such evidence was placed before this Court.
25. To the contrary, and rather paradoxically, it is the Applicants themselves who placed before the Court the Ruling delivered on 22 nd April, 2020 by the Hon. Mr. Justice Munyao Sila in Mombasa ELC No. 6 of 2015 (O.S.), from which it is plainly evident that the said suit was never heard nor determined on its merits, but rather marked as having abated under the provisions of Order 24 Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 all the Respondents therein having died. The factual substratum of Ground 4 of the Grounds of Opposition is thus not borne out by the record.
26. In the premises, the Court finds and holds that the Grounds of Opposition dated 4 th May, 2026, to the extent that they seek to controvert the sworn factual averments of the Applicants on occupation and possession of the suit property, are incompetent for that purpose. The factual averments contained in the Supporting Affidavit sworn on 13 th February, 2026 and the Further Affidavit sworn on 28 th May, 2026 stand uncontroverted. That notwithstanding, the ultimate burden remains on the Applicants to demonstrate to the satisfaction of this Court that they meet the legal threshold for joinder as Interested Parties, an issue to which the Court now turns to for its determination.
ISSUE No. a). Whether the Notice of Motion application dated 13 th February, 2026 by the 1 st to 15 th Interested Parties/Applicants is merited for being enjoined into these proceedings
27. Under this sub–title, the main issue herein is whether this Honourable Court should grant leave to join the 1 st to 15 th Interested Parties as parties to the proceedings, either as Defendants, Interested Parties, or Amicus Curiae, pursuant to Order 1 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
28. On the issue of joinder, The Black’s Law Dictionary defines “Interested Party” as:-
“A party who has a recognizable stake (and therefore standing) in a matter.”
29. The stating point on the joinder is Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010, which states 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 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. ” [Emphasis mine]
30. This provision empowers the Court, at any stage of the proceedings, to order that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary to enable the Court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit, be added. The discretion is wide but must be exercised judiciously.
31. This statutory discretion is reinforced by the provision of Article 159 (2)(b) and (d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, which obliges courts to ensure justice is not delayed and to administer justice without undue regard to procedural technicalities. Thus, the Constitution elevates substantive justice above rigid adherence to form, ensuring that courts are not constrained by technical omissions when the real issues in controversy demand full participation of all necessary parties.
32. With the passage of time, the High Court has expansively deliberated on this jurisprudence. Hence, this Court will not be re – inventing the wheel. It will proceed to make reference to just but a few of the precedents. To begin with, the case of:- “Kingori – Versus - Chege & 3 Others [2002] 2 KLR 243 ” the court provided the following guiding principles for joinder of a party to a suit:
a. He must be a necessary party.
b. He must be a proper party.
c. In the case of the Defendant there must be a relief flowing from that Defendant to the Plaintiff.
d. The ultimate order or decree cannot be enforced without his presence in the matter.
e. His presence is necessary to enable the Court effectively and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.
33. Similarly, in the case of:- “Meme – Versus - Republic, [2004] 1 EA 124” , the High Court observed that a party could be enjoined in a matter for the reasons that:-
i. Joinder of a person because his presence will result in the complete settlement of all the question involved in the proceedings;
ii. Joinder to provide protection for the rights of a party who would otherwise be adversely affected in law;
iii. Joinder to prevent a likely course of proliferated litigation.
34. Further, in the case of:- “Departed Asians Property Custodian Board – Versus - Jaffer Brothers Limited [1999] 1 EA 55” , the Court held that:-
“A clear distinction is called for between joining a party who ought to have been joined as a defendant and one whose presence before the Court is necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit. A party may be joined in a suit, not because there is a cause of action against it, but because that party’s presence is necessary in order to enable the court effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the cause or matter…For a person to be joined on the ground that his presence in the suit is necessary for effectual and complete settlement of all questions in the suit one of two things has to be shown. Either it has to be shown that the orders, which the Plaintiff seeks in the suit, would legally affect the interests of that person, and that it is desirable, for the avoidance of multiplicity of suits, to have such a person joined so that he is bound by the decision of the Court in that suit. Alternatively, a person qualifies, (on an application of a Defendant) to be joined as a co-defendant, where it is shown that the defendant cannot effectually set a defence he desires to set up unless that person is joined in it, or unless the order to be made is to bind that person.”
35. Additionally, in the case of:- “Civicon Limited – Versus - Kivuwatt Limited and 2 Others [2015] eKLR” the court observed as follows:
“Again the power given under the Rules is discretionary which discretion must be exercised judicially. The objective of these Rules is to bring on record all the persons who are parties to the dispute relating to the subject matter, so that the dispute may be determined in their presence at the time without any protraction, or inconvenience and to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. Thus, any party reasonably affected by the pending litigation is a necessary and proper party, and should be enjoined…from the foregoing, it may be concluded that being a discretionary order, the court may allow the joinder of a party as a defendant in a suit based on the general principles set out in Order I rule 10 (2) bearing in mind the unique circumstances of each case with regard to the necessity of the party in the determination of the subject matter of the suit, any direct prejudice likely to be suffered by the party and the practicability of the execution of the order sought in the suit, in the event that the plaintiff should succeed. We may add that all that a party needs to do is to demonstrate sufficient interest in the suit, and the interest need not be the kind that must succeed at the end of the trial.”
36. Additionally, the principle was echoed in case of:- “Mukira & 2 Ot
[...truncated]