[2009] KEHC 94 (KLR)
The court found that both suits arise from the same series of transactions involving the provision of legal services by an advocate to a client, and involve the same parties. Although the suits are pending before different courts, consolidation is justified to save time, costs, and avoid a multiplicity of suits. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2009] KEHC 94 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: APA Insurance; Defendant: C. W. Wanjihia & Co. Advocates
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 604 of 2004
- Procedural Posture
- Chamber Summons / Ruling on Application for Consolidation of Suits
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Legal Topics
- Consolidation of Suits, Multiplicity of Proceedings, Court Jurisdiction, Costs of Suit
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
APA Insurance
Plaintiff
C. W. Wanjihia & Co. Advocates
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Chamber Summons / Ruling on Application for Consolidation of Suits
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the two suits should be consolidated given that they involve substantially the same parties and subject matter.
- 2 Whether consolidation is permissible when the suits are pending before courts of different jurisdiction.
- 3 Whether consolidation would serve the interests of justice by saving time, costs, and avoiding multiplicity of suits.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both suits arise from the same series of transactions involving the provision of legal services by an advocate to a client, and involve the same parties. Although the suits are pending before different courts, consolidation is justified to save time, costs, and avoid a multiplicity of suits. The affidavit evidence sufficiently explained the connection between the two matters. The court held that the interests of justice would be best served by consolidating the suits and conducting the proceedings in the High Court case. The application for consolidation was therefore allowed, with costs in the cause.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- The two suits, Nairobi HCC No.604 of 2004 and CMCC No.1176 of 2007, are consolidated.
- Proceedings shall be conducted in HCC No.604 of 2004.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
(MILIMANI COMMERCIAL COURTS) Civil Case 604 of 2004
APA INSURANCE ...................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
C. W. WANJIHIA CO. ADOVOCATES...............DEFENDANT
RULING
Chamber Summons dated 22/10/08 is brought under Sections 3A Civil Procedure Act and Order XI rule 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Act. Orders sought are the consolidation of suits No.Nairobi HCC No.604 of 2004 and CMCC No.1176 of 2007 and that the proceedings be conducted in suit Number HCC No.604 of 2004.
The application is based on the ground that the two suits are substantially the same subject matter and involved substantially the same parties. In HCC No.604 of 2004 A.P.A. Insurance Ltd. has sued for damages against C.W. Wanjihia & Co. Advocates and in CMCC 1176/2007 the plaintiff is C. W. Wanjihia & Co. Advocates suing A.P.A Insurance for costs.
The application is opposed. The grounds of opposition are that the application is fatally defective and ought to be dismissed, it is misconceived, frivolous and an abuse of court process. One of the cases in the magistrate’s court and the point of law raise din CMCC No.1176 of 2007 is completely different from the issues of law herein.
I have read the affidavit filed by the applicant and sworn by Elizabeth Koskei. The consolidation is based on the main ground that the parties are the same and both deal with the relation of profession services rendered and costs of the advocate.
The authority relied upon that of Mount Kenya Sundries Ltd. & Another versus Kenya Ports Authority & Another, sought consolidation of two suits. The court found that the pleadings of the other suit sought to be consolidated were not attached to the application and therefore the application was dismissed.
In this case, I am of the view that the information contained in the affidavit explains the issues involved in the two suits. The other authority Nyati Security Guards and Services Ltd versus Municipal Council of Mombasa, the court pointed out that the grounds upon which consolidation may be ordered namely:-
(i)Some question common of law or fact in both or all of them, or
(ii)The rights or reliefs claimed are in respect of the same transaction or services transactions or
(iii)For some other reason it is desirable to make or order consolidation.
In that case the court said that the suits to be consolidated should be in the same court.
In this application, it is my view that the two matters arise out of the same series of transactions relating to the performance of legal services by an advocate to his client. They arise out of same services, transactions and the parties are the same.
For purpose of consolidation, that is to save time and costs and effort and a multiplicity of suits, the two suits ought to be consolidated notwithstanding that they are in two different courts.
I allow the application and grant orders as prayed with costs in the cause.
Read, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 27th day of November, 2009.
JOYCE N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE
The Deputy Registrar is directed to arrange for the two court files to be transferred to the High Court Registry and to be consolidated with this file.
JOYCE N. KHAMINWA
JUDGE