1. Before this Court is a Chamber Summons application dated the 9th of September, 2025, brought by Jane Kanyua Kathurima, who seeks two primary reliefs: first, to be enjoined as an Interested Party in the ongoing Civil Suit No. E002 of 2023, and second, the subsequent vacation, discharge, or setting aside of status quo orders issued by this Court on the 4th of December, 2024.
2. The gist of this suit is that the Plaintiff, moved court seeking to challenge the validity of the charge created over parcel of land known as Machakos Town Block 3/2141 on the basis that it was created without the requisite spousal consent as contemplated under the Matrimonial Property Act of 2013 and the Land Act of 2012.
3. The factual background reveals that the 1st Defendant, exercising its statutory power of sale as a chargee following an alleged default by the 3rd Defendant, instructed the 2nd Defendant to undertake a public auction. Following this the Applicant, Jane Kanyua Kathurima, successfully purchased the suit property and was registered as the proprietor of the suit property, as evidenced by a Certificate of Title in her name.
4. On the 4th of December, 2024, the Plaintiff obtained status quo orders effectively freezing the property’s status and preventing the Applicant from taking possession. The Applicant now contends that her presence is necessary to adjudicate the suit effectively, as her title is directly derived from the very charge document that the Plaintiff seeks to invalidate. She argues that under Section 99 of the Land Act, her interest as an auction purchaser is protected by law against the adverse claims raised by the Plaintiff.
5. The 3rd Defendant, opposes the application. He argues that the application is an abuse of the court process. He makes reference to the parallel proceedings in the Environment and Land Court (ELC) at Machakos, Case No. E010 of 2025, where the Applicant is seeking eviction orders against the Defendants. He also invokes the doctrine of sub judice under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the grounds that the issues raised here are already being ventilated in the ELC.
6. Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 provides that the court may, at any stage of the proceedings, add the name of any person whose presence may be necessary to enable the court to adjudicate effectively and completely upon all questions involved in the suit. The Applicant asserts that as the current registered owner of the suit property, she is the party most affected by the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff, which include a declaration that the charge, the root of her title, is illegal and invalid ab initio.
7. In Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemo & 5 others [2015] eKLR, where the Supreme Court defined an interested party as:
“…, an interested party is one who has a stake in the proceedings, though he or she was not party to the cause ab initio. He or she is one who will be affected by the decision of the court when it is made, either way. Such a person feels that his or her interest will not be well articulated unless he himself or she herself appears in the proceedings, and champions his or her cause.”
8. Further in the case of Muruatetu & another v Republic; Kenya National Commission on Human Rights & 2 others (Interested Parties); Death Penalty Project (Intended Amicus Curiae) (Petition 15 & 16 of 2015 (Consolidated)) [2016] KESC 12 (KLR) (Civ) (28 January 2016) (Ruling), the court discussed the guiding principles of enjoining interested parties it stated:
“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:
i.The personal interest or stake that the party has in the matter must be set out in the application. The interest must be clearly identifiable and must be proximate enough, to stand apart from anything that is merely peripheral.
ii.The prejudice to be suffered by the intended interested party in case of non-joinder must also be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court. It must also be clearly outlined and not something remote.
iii.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.”
9. From the above authorities, it is evident that joinder is not a matter of right but is at the discretion of the Court. The purpose of enjoining an interested party is to ensure the complete and just resolution of all issues in the proceedings, to protect parties who may be adversely affected by the outcome, and to avoid multiplicity of suits.
10. Applying the above standards to the present application, this Court finds that the Applicant possesses a proprietary interest that is arguable. If the Plaintiff succeeds in invalidating the charge, the Applicant’s registration and subsequent ownership would be directly threatened.
11. Further, the 3rd Defendant strongly objects to the joinder, arguing that the Applicant has already instituted a separate suit, Machakos ELC Case No. E010 of 2025, which deals with the same property and the same parties. He invokes the doctrine of sub judice as set out in Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act. He asserts that the Applicant is engaging in forum shopping and that her presence in this suit would only complicate the resolution of the issues.
12. This Court should then determine whether the two suits are sub judice. The ELC suit seeks vacant possession and eviction based on her existing registered title. Conversely, this suit challenges the validity of the charge that was created on that title. It is this Court finding that the two proceedings are complementary rather than duplicative. If the Applicant is denied joinder here, she remains a spectator to a suit that could eventually strip her of the very title she is trying to enforce in the ELC.
13. The second prayer in the Applicant’s Chamber Summons is for the vacation of the status quo orders issued on 4th December 2024. These orders effectively maintain the property in its current state, preventing the Applicant from exercising her rights as the registered proprietor. The Applicant argues that these orders were issued without her being heard, despite her interest being the most affected, and that they serve no purpose as the property was already sold before the orders were granted.
14. This court finds that the prayer is premature as at this moment and the balance of convenience favours retaining the status quo.
15. The upshot is that the Applicant has established a proper case for joinder. Consequently, the Court issues the following orders:
a) The Application by Jane Kanyua Kathurima to be enjoined as an Interested Party in this suit is hereby allowed.
b) The Interested Party shall file and serve her desired pleadings, witness statements, and list of documents within thirty 30 day) days from the date of this order.
c) The status quo orders issued by this Court on 4th December 2024 is maintained.
d) The costs of this application shall be in the cause.
It is so ordered.
Delivered, Dated and Signed this 15th day of January 2026
2. The gist of this suit is that the Plaintiff, moved court seeking to challenge the validity of the charge created over parcel of land known as Machakos Town Block 3/2141 on the basis that it was created without the requisite spousal consent as contemplated under the Matrimonial Property Act of 2013 and the Land Act of 2012.
3. The factual background reveals that the 1st Defendant, exercising its statutory power of sale as a chargee following an alleged default by the 3rd Defendant, instructed the 2nd Defendant to undertake a public auction. Following this the Applicant, Jane Kanyua Kathurima, successfully purchased the suit property and was registered as the proprietor of the suit property, as evidenced by a Certificate of Title in her name.
4. On the 4th of December, 2024, the Plaintiff obtained status quo orders effectively freezing the property’s status and preventing the Applicant from taking possession. The Applicant now contends that her presence is necessary to adjudicate the suit effectively, as her title is directly derived from the very charge document that the Plaintiff seeks to invalidate. She argues that under Section 99 of the Land Act, her interest as an auction purchaser is protected by law against the adverse claims raised by the Plaintiff.
5. The 3rd Defendant, opposes the application. He argues that the application is an abuse of the court process. He makes reference to the parallel proceedings in the Environment and Land Court (ELC) at Machakos, Case No. E010 of 2025, where the Applicant is seeking eviction orders against the Defendants. He also invokes the doctrine of sub judice under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, on the grounds that the issues raised here are already being ventilated in the ELC.
6. Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 provides that the court may, at any stage of the proceedings, add the name of any person whose presence may be necessary to enable the court to adjudicate effectively and completely upon all questions involved in the suit. The Applicant asserts that as the current registered owner of the suit property, she is the party most affected by the reliefs sought by the Plaintiff, which include a declaration that the charge, the root of her title, is illegal and invalid ab initio.
7. In Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Mumo Matemo & 5 others [2015] eKLR, where the Supreme Court defined an interested party as:
“…, an interested party is one who has a stake in the proceedings, though he or she was not party to the cause ab initio. He or she is one who will be affected by the decision of the court when it is made, either way. Such a person feels that his or her interest will not be well articulated unless he himself or she herself appears in the proceedings, and champions his or her cause.”
8. Further in the case of Muruatetu & another v Republic; Kenya National Commission on Human Rights & 2 others (Interested Parties); Death Penalty Project (Intended Amicus Curiae) (Petition 15 & 16 of 2015 (Consolidated)) [2016] KESC 12 (KLR) (Civ) (28 January 2016) (Ruling), the court discussed the guiding principles of enjoining interested parties it stated:
“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:
i.The personal interest or stake that the party has in the matter must be set out in the application. The interest must be clearly identifiable and must be proximate enough, to stand apart from anything that is merely peripheral.
ii.The prejudice to be suffered by the intended interested party in case of non-joinder must also be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court. It must also be clearly outlined and not something remote.
iii.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.”
9. From the above authorities, it is evident that joinder is not a matter of right but is at the discretion of the Court. The purpose of enjoining an interested party is to ensure the complete and just resolution of all issues in the proceedings, to protect parties who may be adversely affected by the outcome, and to avoid multiplicity of suits.
10. Applying the above standards to the present application, this Court finds that the Applicant possesses a proprietary interest that is arguable. If the Plaintiff succeeds in invalidating the charge, the Applicant’s registration and subsequent ownership would be directly threatened.
11. Further, the 3rd Defendant strongly objects to the joinder, arguing that the Applicant has already instituted a separate suit, Machakos ELC Case No. E010 of 2025, which deals with the same property and the same parties. He invokes the doctrine of sub judice as set out in Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act. He asserts that the Applicant is engaging in forum shopping and that her presence in this suit would only complicate the resolution of the issues.
12. This Court should then determine whether the two suits are sub judice. The ELC suit seeks vacant possession and eviction based on her existing registered title. Conversely, this suit challenges the validity of the charge that was created on that title. It is this Court finding that the two proceedings are complementary rather than duplicative. If the Applicant is denied joinder here, she remains a spectator to a suit that could eventually strip her of the very title she is trying to enforce in the ELC.
13. The second prayer in the Applicant’s Chamber Summons is for the vacation of the status quo orders issued on 4th December 2024. These orders effectively maintain the property in its current state, preventing the Applicant from exercising her rights as the registered proprietor. The Applicant argues that these orders were issued without her being heard, despite her interest being the most affected, and that they serve no purpose as the property was already sold before the orders were granted.
14. This court finds that the prayer is premature as at this moment and the balance of convenience favours retaining the status quo.
15. The upshot is that the Applicant has established a proper case for joinder. Consequently, the Court issues the following orders:
a) The Application by Jane Kanyua Kathurima to be enjoined as an Interested Party in this suit is hereby allowed.
b) The Interested Party shall file and serve her desired pleadings, witness statements, and list of documents within thirty 30 day) days from the date of this order.
c) The status quo orders issued by this Court on 4th December 2024 is maintained.
d) The costs of this application shall be in the cause.
It is so ordered.
Delivered, Dated and Signed this 15th day of January 2026