https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4554

**REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT EMBU** **CIVIL SUIT NO. E009 OF 2023** **NGONDI NJERU...................................................................PLAINTIFF** **VERSUS** **AMBROSE KITHAKA NJERU & 24 OTHERS.............….....DEFENDANTS** **RULING** 1. Vide the Notice of Motion dated 08/10/2025, the Plaintiff is seeking interalia, that this suit be consolidated with Embu ELC Case No. 336 of 2015. 2. The application is based on grounds on the face of the application supported by the affidavit of the Plaintiff, Ngondi Njeru sworn on 08/10/2025. The Applicant stated that the suit herein touches on land title No’s 4397-4420 which were borne out from land block No. 109. That the subject land in ELC Case No. 336 of 2015 is land block No. 109 and that the parties in the two suits are the same. He averred that consolidation of the two suits is mete and just to avoid conflicting decisions and ensure a just resolution of the disputes. He annexed to the supporting affidavit a copy of the Plaint in ELC Case No. 336 of 2015 and a letter dated 11/11/2019 from the Land Adjudication and Settlement Officer. 3. The 1st Defendant on behalf of the 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 12th, 14th, 17th, 19th and 22nd Defendants in opposition to the application filed a Replying affidavit dated 04/02/2026 and deposed that the Plaintiff has not served the 6th-11th, 15th, 16th, 18th, 20th and 21st Defendants with summons to enable consolidation of this suit with ELC Case No. 336 of 2015 and that it was therefore an attempt by the Plaintiff to reach the said Defendants because some of them are parties in ELC Case No. 336 of 2015. He averred that the Plaintiff has not provided a reason for consolidation of the two suits and that the Plaintiff had previously made a failed attempt to join ELC Case No. 336 of 2015. 4. He further stated that consolidation of the two suits is neither in the interest of justice nor does it help in expeditious disposal of the suit. That consolidation of the suits would only create confusion as the causes of action are different, the parties are different and the suit lands are also different. He averred that ELC Case No. 336 of 2015 is at an advanced stage as the parties are pursuing an out of court settlement and therefore the application should be dismissed with costs. 5. The 23rd, 24th and 25th Defendants filed grounds of opposition dated 02/04/2026 in opposition to the application. They set out grounds inter alia, that the application does not meet the legal threshold for consolidation of suits as the Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that the suits raise common questions of law or fact; that from the respective Plaints, the two suits arise from different facts and claims and that the reliefs sought do not stem from the same transaction or series of transactions; that the causes of action, issues and parties in the two suits do not match and consolidation would be inappropriate; that the application defeats the overriding objective under sections 1A, 1B of the Civil Procedure Act which is to facilitate the just, expeditious and efficient disposal of cases and therefore should be dismissed with costs. 6. When the application came up for directions, the parties agreed canvass it by way of affidavit evidence and written submissions. 7. The Plaintiff filed submissions dated 27/04/2026 through the firm of Macharia Muraguri & Company Advocates. He submitted that the application for consolidation is merited and that the Court has wide discretionary and inherent powers to order consolidation in order to achieve the overriding objective of administering substantial justice. It was argued that the Court should be guided by Article 159 of the Constitution and Section 19 of the Environment and Land Court Act, which require the Court to administer justice without undue regard to technicalities, strict rules of evidence or procedural requirements. The Plaintiff further submitted that the parties in the present suit and ELC No. 336 of 2015 are substantially the same, save for several Defendants who were withdrawn from the present suit after they could not be served and are plaintiffs in ELC No. 336 of 2015. It was further contended that both suits concern the same subject matter, namely Block 109 and the resultant title deeds Nos. 4397–4420. The Plaintiff argued that consolidation would avoid conflicting decisions, save costs, facilitate the expeditious disposal of the disputes and would occasion no prejudice to any party. 8. The 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 12th, 14th, 17th, 19th and 22nd Defendants filed submissions dated 20/05/2025 through the firm of Momanyi Gichuki & Company Advocates. They submitted that the Plaintiff had failed to demonstrate how consolidation of this suit with ELC Case No. 336 of 2015 would serve the interests of justice or facilitate expeditious disposal of the suits. They further argued that ELC Case No. 336 of 2015 is at an advanced stage and that consolidation would only delay its hearing. It was also submitted that the parties in the two suits are not the same, as the Plaintiff had withdrawn the suit against several Defendants despite some of them being parties in ELC Case No. 336 of 2015. They further maintained that the causes of action and the reliefs sought in the two suits are different. They therefore argued that consolidation would them and urged the Court to dismiss the application. 9. The 23rd, 24th and 25th Defendants filed submissions dated 02/04/2026 through the Office of the Attorney General. They submitted that consolidation is not appropriate in this case as the parties in the two suits are not the same, as Ngondi Njeru is not a party in ELC No. 336 of 2015, while Daudi Ngari Njiru and Janet Mwaniki are not parties in the present suit. They argued that the two suits differ both in law and fact, with ELC No. 336 of 2015 concerning registration and ownership rights, where the court is called upon to determine whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to be registered as the lawful proprietors of their respective portions of land. Whereas, the present suit challenges the legality of already issued title deeds and seeks their cancellation together with restoration of the original parcel and fresh adjudication. It was submitted that in the present case, consolidation would not achieve efficiency but would instead merge distinct claims, introduce confusion and prejudice the parties. 10. Having considered the application, the responses made to it and the parties submissions, I find that the issue for determination is whether this suit should be consolidated with ELC Case No. 336 of 2015. 11. The purpose of consolidation of suits is to further the expeditious disposal of cases as provided for under Order 11 Rule 3. 12. I have perused the two suits that the Plaintiff is seeking to be consolidated. In Embu ELC Case No. 336 of 2015, the Plaintiffs therein seek orders compelling the Director of Land Adjudication, the District Land Adjudication Officer and the Attorney General to register them as the proprietors of Land Parcel No. 109 Gichihe Adjudication Section, on the basis that they were adjudged to be the lawful owners of the said parcel. In the present suit, the Plaintiff seeks cancellation of title No’s. 4397–4420 and Block No. 109 Gichiche Land Adjudication Section to be restored. He also seeks an order directing the Land Adjudication Officer, Mbeere South, to undertake a fresh adjudication of the land in accordance with the provisions of the Land Adjudication Act, Cap. 284 Laws of Kenya. 13. It is evident that whereas both suits originate from the same parcel of land, the Plaintiffs' causes of action in each case are different, are directed against different Defendants, and the reliefs sought are also substantially different. I agree with the Defendants that to consolidate the two suits would only result in confusion. The court is therefore of the view that it would be in the interest of justice and for the effective adjudication of the matters in dispute for the parties to pursue their claims separately. Accordingly, I find that the Plaintiff has failed to advance any compelling or sufficient basis to consolidate the two suits. 14. Consequently, the Notice of motion dated 08/10/2025 is lacking in merit and the same is hereby dismissed with no orders as to costs. **DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED AT EMBU THIS 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2026.** **……………………** **HON. E.C CHERONO** **ELC JUDGE,EMBU** In the presence of; 1. Mr. Macharia Muraguri for Applicant-present 2. M/S Karimi H/B for Mr. Kiongo for the 23rd-25th Defendant 3. Ruth C/A-present