[2024] KECPT 928 (KLR)
The Tribunal found that all 105 claimants' causes of action arose from the same transaction or series of transactions, specifically the purchase of apartments from the 1st respondent on the same parcel of land at a uniform price. The legal and factual issues, as well as the reliefs sought, are identical. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] KECPT 928 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Mary Kemunto Mayieka & 104 others; Respondent: Urithi Housing Co-operative Society Limited; Respondent: Samuel Ngundo Maina
- Court
- Cooperative Tribunal
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Tribunal Case 55 of 2021
- Procedural Posture
- Tribunal Case / Ruling on Consolidation and Representation of Claimants at Hearing
- Outcome
- Application for consolidation and representation by one claimant allowed; matter to proceed with one claimant giving evidence on behalf of all others.
- Judges
- Janet Mwatsama, B Sawe, P. Gichuki
- Legal Topics
- Consolidation of Actions, Representation of Parties, Judicial Discretion, Pre Trial Directions
- 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
Mary Kemunto Mayieka & 104 others
Applicant
Urithi Housing Co-operative Society Limited
Respondent
Samuel Ngundo Maina
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Tribunal Case / Ruling on Consolidation and Representation of Claimants at Hearing
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Tribunal should allow consolidation of the claims by 105 claimants arising from similar sale agreements.
- 2 Whether one claimant can represent all others in giving evidence where the causes of action are identical in law and fact.
- 3 Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice if consolidation and representation are allowed.
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal found that all 105 claimants' causes of action arose from the same transaction or series of transactions, specifically the purchase of apartments from the 1st respondent on the same parcel of land at a uniform price. The legal and factual issues, as well as the reliefs sought, are identical. The Tribunal held that consolidation is appropriate to save costs and judicial time, and that there is no legal bar to one claimant representing the others in giving evidence. The respondents failed to demonstrate any specific prejudice that would result from such consolidation or representation. The Tribunal therefore exercised its discretion to allow the matter to proceed with one...
Court Disposition
Application for consolidation and representation by one claimant allowed; matter to proceed with one claimant giving evidence on behalf of all others.
Orders
- The matter shall proceed for hearing of the claimant’s one witness on behalf of all other claimants.
- The case is to proceed with the 2nd claimant to its close.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
Mayieka & 104 others v Urithi Housing Co-operative Society Limited & another (Tribunal Case 55 of 2021) [2024] KECPT 928 (KLR) (16 May 2024) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2024] KECPT 928 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Cooperative Tribunal
Tribunal Case 55 of 2021
Janet Mwatsama, Vice Chair, B Sawe & P. Gichuki, Members
May 16, 2024
Between
Mary Kemunto Mayieka & 104 others
Claimant
and
Urithi Housing Co-operative Society Limited
1st Respondent
Samuel Ngundo Maina
2nd Respondent
Ruling
1. It cannot be disputed that even on its own motion courts have discretion and power to consolidate matters or causes of action in appropriate cases.
2. Appropriate cases in this context are cases where the questions of law and fact and the reliefs sought are the same.
3. The main purpose of consolidation is to save on costs for all parties and also save on the limited judicial time. In this particular case it appears to the Tribunal that there are common questions of law and fact and the reliefs being sought.The cause of action arose from the same transaction or series of transaction. Each of the 104 Claimant’s cause of action arose from the sale agreement in respect to an apartment(s) erected by the 1st Respondent on the same parcel of land being Mavoko Town Block 3/73993. It is further important to note the apartment cost was sold at the same price of Kshs. 1. 600,000/=, The only point of variance is the number of apartments bought by the Claimants.
4. The overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21, Article 151 of the Constitution mandates this Tribunal to dispense justice without undue delay and or undue regard to technicalities.Given that the Respondents have not indicated specifically the prejudice they are likely to suffer if at all, if at some Claimants represent others.
5. There is no law that stops consolidation or parties representing other parties. All along the matter has come up severally for pre-trial directions and Claimants have always had specific Claimants to ventilate their cases.At no given point did the Respondent raise the issue of all Claimants coming to give evidence. We take great exception to the Application being made by the Respondent’s Advocate indeed too late in the day and we find is not merited.
6. As such we order for the matter to proceed for hearing of the Claimant’s one witness on behalf of all other Claimants as the causes of action of the other 103 Claimants do not differ with the 2nd Claimant’s on matters of law and fact.
7. We further note the matter has come up for hearing severally and Respondent has always sought for an adjournment.It is our guided view that in the interest of justice and for expediency of the matter herein the case is to proceed with 2nd Claimant to its close.
RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 16TH DAY OF MAY, 2024. Hon. J. Mwatsama Deputy Chairperson Signed 16. 5.2024Hon. Beatrice Sawe Member Signed 16. 5.2024Hon. Philip Gichuki Member Signed 16. 5.2024Tribunal Clerk JonahGachie advocate for the ClaimantMwangi advocate for the Respondent together with Echom Advocate.Hon. J. Mwatsama Deputy Chairperson Signed 16. 5.2024