[2006] KEHC 1975 (KLR)
The court held that for two suits to be consolidated, both must be pending actions, which requires that summons be served in each suit. Since HCCC No. 93 of 2005 had not been served on the defendant, it was not a pending suit and thus not eligible for consolidation. The court found that similarities in law or fact...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2006] KEHC 1975 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Dutto Maria Lucia; Defendant: Maurizio Ricotti
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Malindi
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 77 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Consolidation
- Outcome
- application struck out with costs
- Legal Topics
- Consolidation of Suits, Pending Actions, Service of Summons
- 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
Dutto Maria Lucia
Plaintiff
Maurizio Ricotti
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Consolidation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit can be consolidated with HCCC No. 93 of 2005 pursuant to Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether both suits are pending actions eligible for consolidation under the law.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that for two suits to be consolidated, both must be pending actions, which requires that summons be served in each suit. Since HCCC No. 93 of 2005 had not been served on the defendant, it was not a pending suit and thus not eligible for consolidation. The court found that similarities in law or fact between the suits could not be properly assessed until service and response occurred. Consequently, the application for consolidation was incompetent and was struck out with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application struck out with costs
Orders
- The application dated 26th October, 2005 is struck out with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MALINDI Civil Case 77 of 2005
DUTTO MARIA LUCIA……………………..………………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MAURIZIO RICOTTI……………………………………..DEFENDANT
RULING
The applicant is seeking in this application that this suit be consolidated with HCCC No. 93 of 2005.
The application is grounded on the fact that the two suits raise similar questions of law and fact and that there will be no prejudice to the 1st respondent if consolidation is allowed.
In their grounds of opposition the 1st respondent argues that the said HCCC. NO. 93 of 2005 has never been served upon them while the pleadings herein are closed. I have considered these submissions.
The principal question with which the court here is concerned is whether the two suits can be consolidated pursuant to Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules. From the annexed plaint, I have no doubt that Malindi HCCC No. 93 of 2005 was filed by the applicant in this Court on 23rd September, 2005.
For an application for consolidation of a suit to succeed, the court must be satisfied that;
i) the two suits are pending and
ii) they raise the same or similar questions of law or fact
So when is a case said to be pending? Strictly speaking the
Court becomes seized of an action on the issue and service of summons. A suit does not become a pending action until summons are served on the defendant.
In an old English case ofHelenslea, The Catalonia (1881) PD 57 cited in Arab Monetary Fund V Hashim and others (No. 4) (1992) 4 All ER 860, Sir Robert Phillimore declined to consolidate two cross-actions on the grounds that the summons in one of the actions had not been served. He said as follows;
“Two suits can only, I think be consolidated after each of them has become a lis pendens; and it is clear that a suit in personam does not become a lis pendens until after service of the writ of summons”.
From this it can be said that two suits could only be consolidated after each of them had become a lis pendens. In other words a pending suit. A suit in personam did not become a pending suit until after service of the summons.
Although the case dealt with an admiralty jurisdiction, I believe the principle it laid down is applicable in all cases of consolidation.
In the instant case the applicant has conceded that HCCC.No.93 of 2005 has not been served. It cannot therefore, in terms of the above authority be said to be pending. It may raise the same or similar questions of law or fact as the instant suit, but until it is served and the other party responds to it the similarities may not be discerned from the plaint alone.
For these reasons, the application dated 26th October, 2005 is incompetent and is struck out with costs.
Dated and delivered at Malindi this 28th day of February 2006.
W.OUKO
JUDGE
28. 2.2006
Before
W.OUKO
JUDGE
Mr.Ole Kina
Mr.Owencha for Mr.Maosa
CC. Matu
Ruling delivered.
W.OUKO
JUDGE