Wairegi v Kenya Railways Corporation (Environment and Land Case 20 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 3234 (KLR) (26 May 2026) (Ruling)

Wairegi v Kenya Railways Corporation (Environment and Land Case 20 of 2021) [2026] KEELC 3234 (KLR) (26 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3234 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Nanyuki Environment and Land Case 20 of 2021 LN Mbugua, J May 26, 2026 FORMERLY NYERI ELC CASE NO. 22 OF 2020) Between Murakaru Wairegi Plaintiff and Kenya Railways Corporation Defendant Ruling 1.Before me is a Notice of Motion Application dated 20.11.2025 brought forth by the defendant herein seeking orders of stay of proceedings in this suit pending the hearing and determination of Nanyuki Elcc No 41 Of 2021: Jane Nyawira Kiama & Another –vs- Murakaru Wairegi & Others (hereinafter, the older suit). The application is premised on grounds on the face of the application and the supporting affidavit of Austin Ochieng Otieno. The applicant contends that prior to the filing of this suit, the plaintiff Murakaru Wairegi had been sued in the older suit in which the plaintiffs in that case are claiming ownership of land parcel Nanyuki Municipality Block 8/848 And Nanyuki Municipality Block 8/925. That if the court finds that the current plaintiff is not the owner of parcel BLOCK 8/848 and BLOCK 8/925 in the older suit then the current suit will automatically collapse and become moot. That proceeding with the current suit concurrently with the older suit will amount to an abuse of the court processes and may even lead to conflicting decisions. 2.In opposition thereof the plaintiff filed a replying affidavit dated 16.5.2026 where he contends that he is the registered owner of both parcels of BLOCK 8/848 and BLOCK 8/925. That he was indeed sued in the older suit in which the plaintiffs in that case are claiming an interest in parcel BLOCK 8/848. He avers that the dispute in parcel BLOCK 8/848 does not extend to BLOCK 8/925. Thus even if the issue of BLOCK 8/848 is heard and determined in the older suit the issue of BLOCK 8/925 will still remain pending. He contends that the order of stay will be extremely oppressing and prejudicial to him as he has been ready and willing to prosecute his case, adding that no miscarriage of justice will be occasioned if an order of stay of proceedings is not granted. 3.I have considered all the arguments proffered herein including the record in both files. It is noted that the claim of the plaintiffs in the older suit relates to the unsurveyed plot Number 28 – Nanyuki Municipality which was given a new number as Nanyuki Municipality Block 8/848. The plaintiffs in that older suit claim that the suit property was allocated to Joseph Kiama Ruheni (deceased) on 27th February 1987 and that the plaintiffs are his legal representatives. The plaintiffs in the said case are challenging the issuance of a new number BLOCK 8/848 in favour of Murakaru Wairegi who is the 1st defendant in the said case and a plaintiff in the newer suit. 4.In the current suit ELC 20 of 2021 the plaintiff Murakaru Wairegi avers that he bought an unsurveyed plot No. 27 Nanyuki Municipality from Charles Kipsang Chuba who was the original allottee of that parcel vide a letter of allotment dated 26.2.1987. That the said parcel was surveyed and issued with a new number BLOCK 8/848. That in year 2013 the plaintiff bought parcel Nanyuki Municipality 8/925 from his neighbour and he was registered as the owner of the said parcel on 27.5.2013. That he developed his properties, but around 3.6.2020, the defendant painted on the fence of property the markings “XKR” which the plaintiff believes that they imply that plaintiff’s fence has encroached unto the land of the defendant or that the later has an interest in the said property. 5.I have considered the rival arguments. The issue falling for consideration is whether this suit should be stayed awaiting the determination of the older suit. The general principles which guides the courts whenever they are invited to exercise jurisdiction to stay proceedings are summarized in Halsbury’s Law of England, 4th Edition, Vol 37 at pages 330 and 332 as follows:“The stay of proceedings is a serious, grave and fundamental interruption in the right that a party has to conduct his litigation towards the trial on the basis of the substantive merits of his case, and therefore the court’s general practice is that a stay of proceedings should not be imposed unless the proceedings beyond all reasonable doubt ought not to be allowed to continue”Also see; Ferdinard Ndung’u Waititu V Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission (IEBC) & 8 Others (2013)eKLR. 6.A perusal of the defence filed by the applicants in the current matter reveals that the same contains a general denial of the plaintiff’s claim. In particular, the defendants deny ever putting any marks on the suit properties or interfering with plaintiff’s enjoyment of proprietary right if any in the suit property. If that be the case it follows that the applicants are not asserting a claim of ownership of the two suit parcels and the matter need not await the claim of ownership to be determined in the older suit. 7.Furthermore, the older suit only concerns one parcel that is BLOCK 8/848 while in the current suit, the dispute relates to both parcels BLOCK 8/848 as well as BLOCK 8/925. As rightly pointed out by the plaintiff in the current matter a stay of these proceedings will still leave the dispute in parcel BLOCK 8/925 as unresolved. 8.In that regard I find that the orders sought are unmerited. However, for good order it would be prudent for the two cases to be heard together in so far as it is practicable, and in any event, the court will take judicial notice of the existence of the two files. The application dated 20.11.2025 is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NANYUKI THIS 26TH DAY OF MAY 2026 THROUGH MICROSOFT TEAMS.LUCY N. MBUGUAJUDGEIn the presence of:Waititu h/b for Mahinda for plaintiffOchieng for defendantNancy Mwangi – Court Assistant