REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NYERI
ELC NO.21B OF 2023
SPRANZA GATHONI MACHARIA……...............................1 ST PLAINTIFF
NEWTON WAHOME MACHARIA.........................................2 ND PLAINTIFF
MURIUKI MACHARIA…........…............................................3 RD PLAINTIFF
JOSPHAT MWANGI MACHARIA……........…......................4 TH PLAINTIFF
-VERSUS-
GEORGE MUNENE MACHARIA….........................................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The application dated 7th April 2026, by way of Notice of Motion, was filed by the 3rd Plaintiff/Applicant and seeks the following orders:
a) It is hereby requested that Barclays Bank, now operating as Absa Bank Kenya PLC, be joined in these proceedings as an Interested Party. This is to confirm the status of the loan amounting to Ksh. 18,000/-, allegedly extended to the Applicants, with LP TO. MAGL/7L//RAGA7/3d4 serving as security.
b) That this Honourable Court is requested to issue summons compelling the aforementioned bank to produce the relevant records and/or to confirm whether the Applicants have fully settled the loan in question.
c) That costs of this application be in the cause.
2. The Application is supported by the affidavit of the 3rd Plaintiff/Applicant, with the authority of his co-applicants, in which he deposed that this Honourable Court directed that he either file proof of payment of Ksh. 18,000/= or enjoin the bank to confirm the same.
3. That the said loan was processed through Absa Bank Kenya PLC, and LR No. Magutu/Ragat/364 was used as security, with a restriction placed on this land on 3rd April 1979, as per the attached copy of the search marked DMM ‘2’.
4. The 3rd Plaintiff/Applicant believes that the loan has been fully repaid, but the bank is in a better position to confirm this and produce official records.
5. He argues that it is therefore necessary to order the said bank to assist the Court in determining the issue conclusively.
Analysis and determination
6. By order dated 28th January 2026, this Court directed the 3rd Plaintiff/Applicant to file an affidavit confirming whether Kshs. 18,000/= had been paid to Absa Bank Kenya PLC, given that he had sought the discharge of the charge over LR No. Magutu/Ragat/364, or to join the Bank as an interested party to these proceedings. The Bank has now sought joinder in the instant application.
7. Order 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules governs the joinder of a party. Order 1(10) provides that:
“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 party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and 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.”
8. Black's Law Dictionary defines an “Interested Party” as:
"a party who has a recognizable stake (and therefore standing) in a matter".”
9. The apex Court in the case of Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Matemo & 3 others (Petition 12 of 2013) [2015] KESC 26 (KLR) elaborated on the principles governing joinder of a party as follows:
“.… 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”
10. Additionally, the Supreme Court in the case of Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 others [2014] eKLR cited with approval the following case, which set out the elements necessary for joinder of a party as follows:
“In the case of Meme v. 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 questions 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.”
We ask ourselves the following questions:
(a) what is the intended interested party’s stake and relevance in the proceedings? and
(b) will the intended interested party suffer any prejudice if denied joinder?
11. From the foregoing, joinder of Absa Bank Kenya PLC is necessary for the complete settlement of all the questions involved in the proceedings, as the Bank is the holder of the loan facility records and the only party who can give an accurate account. Further, the Bank has a stake because a discharge of charge issued while an amount remains outstanding would not be in its interest; thus, it must come and set the record straight.
12. That a further order is hereby made that Absa file an affidavit setting out the status of the account under the charge, since the Bank is joined as a necessary party, and that it be served with these proceedings and court pleadings to be guided accordingly.
13. No order as to costs.
Dated, signed, and delivered virtually at Nyeri on this 12th day of August 2026.
E. K. MAKORI
JUDGE
In the Presence of:
The Applicant
Denis - Court Assistant
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NYERI
ELC NO.21B OF 2023
SPRANZA GATHONI MACHARIA……...............................1 ST PLAINTIFF
NEWTON WAHOME MACHARIA.........................................2 ND PLAINTIFF
MURIUKI MACHARIA…........…............................................3 RD PLAINTIFF
JOSPHAT MWANGI MACHARIA……........…......................4 TH PLAINTIFF
-VERSUS-
GEORGE MUNENE MACHARIA….........................................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The application dated 7th April 2026, by way of Notice of Motion, was filed by the 3rd Plaintiff/Applicant and seeks the following orders:
a) It is hereby requested that Barclays Bank, now operating as Absa Bank Kenya PLC, be joined in these proceedings as an Interested Party. This is to confirm the status of the loan amounting to Ksh. 18,000/-, allegedly extended to the Applicants, with LP TO. MAGL/7L//RAGA7/3d4 serving as security.
b) That this Honourable Court is requested to issue summons compelling the aforementioned bank to produce the relevant records and/or to confirm whether the Applicants have fully settled the loan in question.
c) That costs of this application be in the cause.
2. The Application is supported by the affidavit of the 3rd Plaintiff/Applicant, with the authority of his co-applicants, in which he deposed that this Honourable Court directed that he either file proof of payment of Ksh. 18,000/= or enjoin the bank to confirm the same.
3. That the said loan was processed through Absa Bank Kenya PLC, and LR No. Magutu/Ragat/364 was used as security, with a restriction placed on this land on 3rd April 1979, as per the attached copy of the search marked DMM ‘2’.
4. The 3rd Plaintiff/Applicant believes that the loan has been fully repaid, but the bank is in a better position to confirm this and produce official records.
5. He argues that it is therefore necessary to order the said bank to assist the Court in determining the issue conclusively.
Analysis and determination
6. By order dated 28th January 2026, this Court directed the 3rd Plaintiff/Applicant to file an affidavit confirming whether Kshs. 18,000/= had been paid to Absa Bank Kenya PLC, given that he had sought the discharge of the charge over LR No. Magutu/Ragat/364, or to join the Bank as an interested party to these proceedings. The Bank has now sought joinder in the instant application.
7. Order 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules governs the joinder of a party. Order 1(10) provides that:
“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 party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and 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.”
8. Black's Law Dictionary defines an “Interested Party” as:
"a party who has a recognizable stake (and therefore standing) in a matter".”
9. The apex Court in the case of Trusted Society of Human Rights Alliance v Matemo & 3 others (Petition 12 of 2013) [2015] KESC 26 (KLR) elaborated on the principles governing joinder of a party as follows:
“.… 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”
10. Additionally, the Supreme Court in the case of Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others v Royal Media Services Limited & 5 others [2014] eKLR cited with approval the following case, which set out the elements necessary for joinder of a party as follows:
“In the case of Meme v. 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 questions 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.”
We ask ourselves the following questions:
(a) what is the intended interested party’s stake and relevance in the proceedings? and
(b) will the intended interested party suffer any prejudice if denied joinder?
11. From the foregoing, joinder of Absa Bank Kenya PLC is necessary for the complete settlement of all the questions involved in the proceedings, as the Bank is the holder of the loan facility records and the only party who can give an accurate account. Further, the Bank has a stake because a discharge of charge issued while an amount remains outstanding would not be in its interest; thus, it must come and set the record straight.
12. That a further order is hereby made that Absa file an affidavit setting out the status of the account under the charge, since the Bank is joined as a necessary party, and that it be served with these proceedings and court pleadings to be guided accordingly.
13. No order as to costs.
Dated, signed, and delivered virtually at Nyeri on this 12th day of August 2026.
E. K. MAKORI
JUDGE
In the Presence of:
The Applicant
Denis - Court Assistant