suffer irreparable loss.
In this affidavit the second defendant states that he purchased the three plots on or about 13 th
February,1996 from the original allottees; he annexed copies of the transfers. Pursuant to the
transfers, titles were issued. He annexed copies thereof; his ownership has not been challenged
either by the City Council or Commissioner of Lands. If the injunction is granted, he stands to
suffer loss and damage as he intends to put up a development which will be for the benefit of the
public.
I must at this stage commend all learned counsel appearing in this matter for his or her very able
submissions. I have also gone through all the cited authorities. Up to this point it will be noted, I
have not addressed the relationship of the plaintiffs with the subject matter the parcels of land in
dispute. This is because the plaintiffs’ capacity to sue or locus standi has been challenged. The
issue of the locus standi goes to the root of any action and like what the Court of Appeal has said
in relation to the jurisdiction of the court to deal with a matter. If I were to find that the plaintiffs
have no locus standi to bring these proceedings. I shall lay down my tools and go no further. I
shall now turn to that issue.
The learned Counsel for the plaintiffs cited Administrative Law Vol. 1(1) and submitted that what
the plaintiffs were required to show was sufficient interest and that this they have. At page 218
paragraph 116 the following statement is made:
‘A pressure group may have sufficient interest whether or not the actual applicant is
directly affected.’
And in the same text at page 219 citing RV Thomas Magistrates Court exp. Greenbaum (1957) 55
LGR 129 Denning L J said;
‘Where application is made to (the court) by a party or a person aggrieved it will
intervene (it is said) ex debito justitiae, in justice to the applicant. When a stranger makes
application it considers whether public interest demands intervention. In either case it is a
matter, which rests ultimately in the discretion of the court.’
Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the plaint read as follows:
“ 4 - The plaintiffs bring this suit on their own respective behalf and on behalf of all residents of
Loresho Estate, Nairobi. The plaintiffs and the other residents of Nairobi, have a common interest
in this suit against both the defendants.
The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of all those pieces of land known as L.R. Nos
209/8336/86, and Nairobi/Block 90/214 and 209/8336/244 respectively on which they have
developed residential houses in which they live.
Further to the foregoing, the plaintiffs have pleaded in paragraph 12 of the plaint that they
together with the other residents of Loresho have with the approval and full cooperation of the
Commissioner of police resolved to build a full fledged police station on the land reserved for
such purpose that is Nairobi/Block 90/307. The plaintiffs and the said other residents have
contributed money and put up some structures for a police post which as at July 1996 was
housing four policemen. More money is being raised to construct more structures to
accommodate up to (12) policemen. It is also their averment that the Nairobi City Council has
built a large under ground water reservoir to serve the residents of Nairobi on the plot reserved
for such purpose. Significantly the defendants have not disputed those averments.
The provisions of a police station and therefore security and water reservoir can not be divorced