[2018] KEELC 526 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 526 (KLR)

The court found that the suits sought to be consolidated raise common questions of law and fact, specifically relating to the interpretation of the Minister's decision in Appeal case No. 252 of 1979 and the allocation of disputed properties. The court held that consolidation would allow for efficient and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 526 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Andrew Mbare; Defendant: The Hon Attorney General; Defendant: Namu Machai; Defendant: Joseck Ngari; Defendant: Peter Njeru; Defendant: Jonah Muchuru Muchangia; Defendant: Nthiga Irandi; Defendant: Julius Nyaga Njira; Defendant: Njue Kiuma; Defendant: Runji Njiru; Defendant: Nimrod Njue Mate; Defendant: David Nthiga; Defendant: Nicholus Nthiga
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Embu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 24 of 2017
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Consolidation of Suits
Outcome
Application for consolidation allowed (excluding Embu CMCC No. 226 of 2013); costs in the cause.
Legal Topics
Consolidation of Suits, Common Questions of Law and Fact, Land Disputes, Ministerial Appeals
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Consolidation of Suits Common Questions of Law and Fact Land Disputes Ministerial Appeals

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Mbare

Plaintiff

The Hon Attorney General

Defendant

Namu Machai

Defendant

Joseck Ngari

Defendant

Peter Njeru

Defendant

Jonah Muchuru Muchangia

Defendant

Nthiga Irandi

Defendant

Julius Nyaga Njira

Defendant

Njue Kiuma

Defendant

Runji Njiru

Defendant

Nimrod Njue Mate

Defendant

David Nthiga

Defendant

Nicholus Nthiga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Consolidation of Suits

  1. 1 Whether the suits should be consolidated due to common questions of law and fact.
  2. 2 Whether any party would be prejudiced by consolidation of the suits.
  3. 3 Whether the subject matter and parties in the suits are the same.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the suits sought to be consolidated raise common questions of law and fact, specifically relating to the interpretation of the Minister's decision in Appeal case No. 252 of 1979 and the allocation of disputed properties. The court held that consolidation would allow for efficient and simultaneous determination of the issues without prejudicing any party. The application for consolidation was therefore allowed, excluding Embu CMCC No. 226 of 2013, which had already been concluded. Costs of the application were ordered to be in the cause.

Court Disposition

Application for consolidation allowed (excluding Embu CMCC No. 226 of 2013); costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's notice of motion dated 28th March 2018 is allowed in terms of prayer No. 1, excluding Embu CMCC No. 226 of 2013.
  • Costs of the application shall be in the cause.