[2007] KEHC 1189 (KLR)
The court held that consolidation of suits is only permissible where both suits are pending before the court. Since HCCC 1769/96 had been finalized by a consent order, it was no longer an active suit and could not be consolidated with Misc. 401/02, which was still pending. Furthermore, the court found that an...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 1189 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Fredrick Kimemi Kimani; Defendant: Mohan Singh s/o Jama Singh; Defendant: Official Receiver of Kenya; Defendant: Administrator of the Estate of Gurchanan Singh Sandhu; Interested Party: John Mburu Kibe
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 401 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Consolidation of Suits
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Legal Topics
- Consolidation of Suits, Adverse Possession, Consent Judgments, Ownership 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
Fredrick Kimemi Kimani
Plaintiff
Mohan Singh s/o Jama Singh
Defendant
Official Receiver of Kenya
Defendant
Administrator of the Estate of Gurchanan Singh Sandhu
Defendant
John Mburu Kibe
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Consolidation of Suits
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the High Court should consolidate Misc. Application 401/02 with HCCC 1769/96.
- 2 Whether a finalized suit can be consolidated with a pending suit.
- 3 Whether an application to set aside a consent order can be made in a different file from where the consent was entered.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that consolidation of suits is only permissible where both suits are pending before the court. Since HCCC 1769/96 had been finalized by a consent order, it was no longer an active suit and could not be consolidated with Misc. 401/02, which was still pending. Furthermore, the court found that an application to set aside a consent order must be made in the same file in which the consent was entered, not in a separate subsequent file. Accordingly, the application for consolidation was dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- The application to consolidate Misc. 401/02 with HCCC 1769/96 is refused.
- The plaintiff's application is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
41 paragraphs
1. Land and Environmental Law Division
2. Civil Practice and Procedure
i. Consolidation of suit
3. Subject of main suit ownership of building property.
LR No.36/1/398 Eastleigh.
ii) Property originally owned by defendant 1, 3 and 4.
iii) Property sold to John Mburu Kibe for Ksh.130,000/- in 1973.
iv) Plaintiff applicant Fredrick K. Kimani files Misc. No.401/2002 claim same property in Adverse Possession.
v) Plaintiff in Hccc1769/96 John Mburu Kibe is vested property through a consent between original owner/officer receiver of estate – judgment of court.
vi) Fredrick K. Kimani applies to have two suit consolidated.
vii) Opposed on grounds Hccc1769/96 has been finalized
viii) Note CM/SRMCC Milimani 2202/02 between plaintiff and defendants Fredrick K. Kimani and John Mburu Kibe.
4. Held: Consolidation refused.
5. Case law
6. Advocate:
R.N.M. Ongegu of Ongegu & Associates Advocates for the plaintiff/applicant- present
I.J. Mwangi of Irungu Mwangi & Co. Advocates for the Interested Party- present
FRIEDRICK KIMEMI KIMANI ……………..................................................................………….. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MOHAN SINGH S/O JAMA SINGH …….….................................................…................1ST DEFENDANT
OFFICIAL RECEIVER OF KENYA…................................................................................2ND DEFENDANT
AS ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OFGURCHANAN SINGH SANDHU).....3RD DEFENDANT
JOHN MBURU KIBE ………………….....................................................……….....INTERESTED PARTY
RULING
I: Background of application to consolidate two suit.
1. Fredrick K. Kimani files an application before this High Court of Kenya dated 5 August 2007 seeking for order under order XI Civil Procedure Rules to consolidate the Originating Summons 401/02 Originating Summons case with Hccc1769/96 between himself and John Mburu Kibe.
2. Briefly, Fredrick K. Kimani entered into a sales agreement whereby the seller was later declared a bankrupt. An official receiver was appointed. The premises was originally owned by 3 defendants.
3. The suit Hccc1769/96 was filed by John Mburu Kibe for ownership also of the said suit premises. The parties appeared before the Principal Deputy registrar C. Njai (as he then was) and a consent entered between the official receiver and John Mburu Kibe that the whole property known as LR 36/1/398 Eastleigh belongs to the said John Mburu Kibe.
4. When Fredrick K. Kimani discovered this he filed suit under Misc.401 of 2002 seeking Adverse Possession of the said premises. I seem to note and became aware of another suit before the magistrates court case at Milimani being CMCC 2202/02. I do not have sight of this file.
5. The question arises should suit Hccc1769/96 be consolidated with Misc.401/2002?
II: Finding
6. I note the arguments put forward by the respondent. Suit Hccc 1769/96 had been compromised by the consent entered of 3 March 2003. The property was given to Fredrick K. Kimani and not John Mburu Kibe and the matters was therefore finalized.
7. Indeed once the consent had been entered to finalize the said suit is spent. What we have before court is file Misc.401/02 that is pending.
8. What the applicant did was to come to court under Misc. application 401/02 and file an application to set aside that consent in Hccc1769/96. You cannot have a consent entered into in a different file, then make application in another subsequent file to have a consent set aside.
9. The applicant’s right to consolidate these two files is denied and refused. The said plaintiff application is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
10. The hearing of this Originating Summons should be set down for direction under Order XXXVI r 8 a 12 Civil Procedure Rules.
Dated this 15th day of November 2007 at Nairobi.
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
R.N.M. Ongegu of Ongegu & Associates Advocates for the plaintiff/applicant- present
I.J. Mwangi of Irungu Mwangi & Co. Advocates for the Interested Party- present