[NOTICE OF MOTION UNDER CERTICATE OF URGENCY DATED 11TH DECEMBER 2025 & CERTIFICATE OF URGENCY DATED 30TH DECEMBER 2025]
1. The petitioners moved the court through the notice of motion dated 11th December 2025 seeking for following orders:
a. Spent.
b. That leave to amend the petition and join new identified respondents named thereof be granted.
c. That the respondents and the newly joined respondents be restrained by temporary injunction from selling, transferring, alienating or whatsoever dealing with the petition subject matters pending the hearing and determination of the application and petition herein.
d. That inhibition order be issued and registered against Mwea/Mutithi/Scheme/201 to 400 pending the hearing and determination of the petition herein.
e. That the parties be ordered to maintain status quo.
f. Costs be borne by the respondents.
g. Any other order as the court may deem fit and just to issue.
The application is premised on the nine (9) grounds on its face marked (a) to (i) and supported by the affidavit of Samuel Muturi Muugu, the 1st petitioner, sworn on his own behalf and on behalf of the other 191 petitioners on 11th December 2025.
2. The 1st respondent filed the replying affidavit sworn by Carolyne Kinyua, on the 6th March 2026, inter alia deposing that the copies of the green cards for the suit properties annexed by the petitioners show that they were last in the name of Kirinyaga County Council, its predecessor, in 2001 and it was therefore, erroneous for the petitioners to claim that the lands were as at 2021 held by the 1st respondent in trust for the farmers. That the 1st respondent is a stranger to the claim that some of the petitioners are being evicted, and bears no responsibility for such acts. That this suit is res judicata in view of the petitioners’ admission of the existence of Nairobi HCCC No. 1146 of 1997 and Kerugoya ELC No. 94 of 2017, between the same parties and subject matter.
3. Samuel Maina Macharia, described as an interested party filed a notice of appointment of advocate, dated 2nd April 2026, through M/S Igati Mwai & Company Advocates. However the said Samuel had neither filed an application to be joined in the proceedings nor a reply to the pending application, as of 15th July 2026, when the petitioners’ application came up for hearing. The counsel on that date indicated they will be filing a joinder application.
4. When the petitioners’ application was called virtually for hearing on 15th July 2026, the 1st petitioner was present representing himself, and other petitioners. Also present was Ms. Small for 1st respondent, Mr. Muriithi for Kiongo for 2nd respondent and Mr. Igati Mwai for Samuel Maina Macharia. After hearing the party and counsel present, the application was confirmed for oral hearing, and placed aside to the end of the call over. The matter was called again for hearing at about 11.20am but only the 1st petitioner and Ms. Small, learned counsel for the 1st respondent were present. Ms. Small notified the court that though the 1st respondent had initially filed a replying affidavit in opposition to the application, she had received instructions from her client to concede to the application. The court reserved the matter for ruling today to enable it peruse the record that is voluminous.
5. I have since perused the physical record and the CTS, and have not seen any evidence of service of the application upon the eleven (11) persons that the petitioners seek to be joined in the petition, as the 43rd to 53rd respondents respectively. Accordingly, no orders can be issued against them, or their properties without first having them served with the application, and being accorded an opportunity to be heard.
6. However, as the 1st respondent who was the only party who had opposed the application, subsequently conceded to the same on 15th July 2026, I find the application for joinder of the eleven (11) persons as respondents is unopposed, and is prima facie reasonable. There being no opposition to the prayers of injunction and inhibition from the existing respondents, the same will be granted to safeguard their legal status pending the hearing and determination of the petition. On costs, the same should abide the outcome of the petition, which is still pending.
7. In view of the foregoing conclusions in the petitioners’ application, the court finds and orders as follows:
a. That the petitioners are granted leave to file and serve an amended petition joining the eleven (11) listed persons as the 43rd to 53rd respondents respectively, within thirty (30) days from the date of this ruling.
b. That an order of temporary injunction restraining the 1st to 42nd respondents from selling, transferring, or alienating land parcels Mwea/Mutithi/Scheme/201 to 400, is hereby issued to be in force pending the hearing and determination of the petition herein.
c. That an inhibition order is hereby issued to be registered, against the titles for land parcels Mwea/Mutithi/Scheme/201 to 400, pending the hearing and determination of the petition herein.
d. That the costs of the application to abide the outcome of the petition.
It is so ordered.
1. The petitioners moved the court through the notice of motion dated 11th December 2025 seeking for following orders:
a. Spent.
b. That leave to amend the petition and join new identified respondents named thereof be granted.
c. That the respondents and the newly joined respondents be restrained by temporary injunction from selling, transferring, alienating or whatsoever dealing with the petition subject matters pending the hearing and determination of the application and petition herein.
d. That inhibition order be issued and registered against Mwea/Mutithi/Scheme/201 to 400 pending the hearing and determination of the petition herein.
e. That the parties be ordered to maintain status quo.
f. Costs be borne by the respondents.
g. Any other order as the court may deem fit and just to issue.
The application is premised on the nine (9) grounds on its face marked (a) to (i) and supported by the affidavit of Samuel Muturi Muugu, the 1st petitioner, sworn on his own behalf and on behalf of the other 191 petitioners on 11th December 2025.
2. The 1st respondent filed the replying affidavit sworn by Carolyne Kinyua, on the 6th March 2026, inter alia deposing that the copies of the green cards for the suit properties annexed by the petitioners show that they were last in the name of Kirinyaga County Council, its predecessor, in 2001 and it was therefore, erroneous for the petitioners to claim that the lands were as at 2021 held by the 1st respondent in trust for the farmers. That the 1st respondent is a stranger to the claim that some of the petitioners are being evicted, and bears no responsibility for such acts. That this suit is res judicata in view of the petitioners’ admission of the existence of Nairobi HCCC No. 1146 of 1997 and Kerugoya ELC No. 94 of 2017, between the same parties and subject matter.
3. Samuel Maina Macharia, described as an interested party filed a notice of appointment of advocate, dated 2nd April 2026, through M/S Igati Mwai & Company Advocates. However the said Samuel had neither filed an application to be joined in the proceedings nor a reply to the pending application, as of 15th July 2026, when the petitioners’ application came up for hearing. The counsel on that date indicated they will be filing a joinder application.
4. When the petitioners’ application was called virtually for hearing on 15th July 2026, the 1st petitioner was present representing himself, and other petitioners. Also present was Ms. Small for 1st respondent, Mr. Muriithi for Kiongo for 2nd respondent and Mr. Igati Mwai for Samuel Maina Macharia. After hearing the party and counsel present, the application was confirmed for oral hearing, and placed aside to the end of the call over. The matter was called again for hearing at about 11.20am but only the 1st petitioner and Ms. Small, learned counsel for the 1st respondent were present. Ms. Small notified the court that though the 1st respondent had initially filed a replying affidavit in opposition to the application, she had received instructions from her client to concede to the application. The court reserved the matter for ruling today to enable it peruse the record that is voluminous.
5. I have since perused the physical record and the CTS, and have not seen any evidence of service of the application upon the eleven (11) persons that the petitioners seek to be joined in the petition, as the 43rd to 53rd respondents respectively. Accordingly, no orders can be issued against them, or their properties without first having them served with the application, and being accorded an opportunity to be heard.
6. However, as the 1st respondent who was the only party who had opposed the application, subsequently conceded to the same on 15th July 2026, I find the application for joinder of the eleven (11) persons as respondents is unopposed, and is prima facie reasonable. There being no opposition to the prayers of injunction and inhibition from the existing respondents, the same will be granted to safeguard their legal status pending the hearing and determination of the petition. On costs, the same should abide the outcome of the petition, which is still pending.
7. In view of the foregoing conclusions in the petitioners’ application, the court finds and orders as follows:
a. That the petitioners are granted leave to file and serve an amended petition joining the eleven (11) listed persons as the 43rd to 53rd respondents respectively, within thirty (30) days from the date of this ruling.
b. That an order of temporary injunction restraining the 1st to 42nd respondents from selling, transferring, or alienating land parcels Mwea/Mutithi/Scheme/201 to 400, is hereby issued to be in force pending the hearing and determination of the petition herein.
c. That an inhibition order is hereby issued to be registered, against the titles for land parcels Mwea/Mutithi/Scheme/201 to 400, pending the hearing and determination of the petition herein.
d. That the costs of the application to abide the outcome of the petition.
It is so ordered.