[2018] KEELC 443 (KLR)
The court found that the Defendants' advocate was present and represented during the hearing of the application for consolidation and had the opportunity to respond but failed to do so. The court further held that the matters sought to be consolidated involved the same suit property, common questions of law and...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 443 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Esther Mbula Mwangangi; Defendant: Nelson Mutisya Muunda; Defendant: Daniel Ongeri Ongera; Defendant: Ruth Moraa Ongera; Applicant: Ngurish Investment Limited; Applicant: ICIPE Staff Housing Co-operative
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 329 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Review, Vary or Set Aside Consolidation Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Consolidation of Suits, Review of Court Orders, Joinder of Parties, Land Title Disputes
- 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
Esther Mbula Mwangangi
Plaintiff
Nelson Mutisya Muunda
Defendant
Daniel Ongeri Ongera
Defendant
Ruth Moraa Ongera
Defendant
Ngurish Investment Limited
Applicant
ICIPE Staff Housing Co-operative
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Review, Vary or Set Aside Consolidation Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should review, vary or set aside its previous order consolidating Machakos ELC No. 359 of 2011, Machakos Succession Cause No. 28 of 2009, and the current suit.
- 2 Whether the parties and issues in the consolidated suits are sufficiently similar to warrant consolidation.
- 3 Whether the Defendants were denied a fair hearing in the making of the consolidation order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Defendants' advocate was present and represented during the hearing of the application for consolidation and had the opportunity to respond but failed to do so. The court further held that the matters sought to be consolidated involved the same suit property, common questions of law and fact, and arose from the same series of transactions. The Defendants did not demonstrate any prejudice they would suffer from consolidation, nor did they show any error on the face of the record or sufficient cause for review. Consequently, the application to review, vary, or set aside the consolidation order was unmeritorious and was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The Application dated 13th June, 2018 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MACHAKOS
ELC. CASE NO. 329 OF 2017
ESTHER MBULA MWANGANGI..................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
NELSON MUTISYA MUUNDA............................................1ST DEFENDANT
DANIEL ONGERI ONGERA...............................................2ND DEFENDANT
RUTH MORAA ONGERA....................................................3RD DEFENDANT
AND
NGURISH INVESTMENT LIMITED..................1ST INTERESTED PARTY
ICIPE STAFF HOUSING CO-OPERATIVE.......2ND INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
1. What is before me is the Application by the Defendants dated 13th June, 2018 seeking for the following orders:
a. That the Honourable Court be pleased to review, vary and or set aside its orders made on 10th April, 2018.
b. That the costs of this Application be in the cause.
2. The Application is premised on the grounds that on 10th April, 2018, the court made an order that the Machakos ELC. No. 359 of 2011 and Machakos Succession Cause No. 28 of 2009 be consolidated and be heard together with the current suit; that the issues raised in Succession Cause No. 28 of 2009 are totally different from the issues raised in the current suit and that the parties in the two suits are also different.
3. The 1st Defendant has deponed that the advocate on record for the Plaintiff in Machakos ELC.L No. 359 of 2011 was never notified of the intended consolidation and that the Application dated 21st February, 2018 was made by the 1st Interested Party but supported by the Affidavit of the Plaintiff.
4. In reply, the Plaintiff deponed that the orders of 10th April, 2018 were made in the presence of and with the participation and consent of all the parties who were duly represented by their counsels; that the three matters relate to the same suit property where common questions of law and fact exist and that there is no apparent error on the face of the record to warrant a review of the orders of the court.
5. According to the Plaintiff, the rights and reliefs sought in the three matters arise from the same series of transactions which is the sub-division of the original title being Machakos Town Block 3/1970 and the transfer of the subsequent sub-divisions to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and that he is also the Plaintiff in ELCL No. 359 of 2011. The Applicants’ advocate did not file submissions. The Plaintiff’s advocate filed submissions and authorities which I have considered.
6. The Defendants/Applicants are seeking to set aside the orders of the court that were made on 10th April, 2018 on the ground that their advocate did not participate in the proceedings and that the three suits are not fit for consolidation.
7. The record shows that on 10th April, 2018, when the Application dated 21st February, 2018 came up for hearing, the Defendants’/Applicants’ advocate was represented by Mr. Ndeto advocate. On the said date, the Defendants’ advocate requested for time to file a response to the Application dated 21st February, 2018, which Application was declined by the court. The court went ahead to allow the Application dated 21st February, 2018.
8. It is therefore not true that the Defendants’/Applicants’ advocate was not heard on the Application dated 21st February, 2018. The Defendants had the opportunity to file a response to the said Application which they failed to do. Although the Defendants have deponed that the Plaintiff’s advocate in ELC. No. 359 of 2011 was not notified of the intended consolidation, the Plaintiff in this matter, who is also the Plaintiff in ELC. No.359 of 2011, has deponed that he is not opposed to the order of consolidation.
9. In any event, the Defendants have not denied that the suit property in the three matters is the same. The Defendants have also not stated the prejudice that they will suffer with the consolidation of the three matters. Considering that the same questions of law and fact will arise in all the three matters, and the reliefs claimed arise out of the same transactions or series of transactions, I find the Defendants’/Applicants’ Application dated 13th June, 2018 to be unmeritorious.
10. For those reasons, I dismiss the Application dated 13th June, 2018 with costs.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2018.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE