https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4222

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT NAIROBI ELC L MISC. CAUSE NO. E220 OF 2024 PETER BONIFACE NDWIGA NJIRU ………………... 1STAPPLICANT JOHN ABUKO DIANGA ……………..………………….. 2NDAPPLICANT BETTER OPTIONS LIMITED ………………. ………… 3RD APPLICANT VERSUS MICHAEL KARAGO …………..………………………. 1ST RESPONDENT ANTHONY MWANGI …………………………..……. 2ND RESPONDENT RULING 1. The Applicants’ Notice of Motion dated 14th October 2024 is for determination. They seek the following Orders: 1. Spent. ELC L MISC. CAUSE NO. E220 OF 2024 Ruling Page 1 of 7 2. That the Honourable Court be and is hereby pleased, to grant an interim order of stay of proceedings in MCELC 385 of 2022 Peter Boniface Mwangi & others v Michael Karago & others, pending hearing and determination of this application inter parte or further orders of this Court. 3. The Honorable Court be and is hereby pleased to issue an order withdrawing MCELC E385 of 2022 –Peter Boniface Mwangi & others v Michael Karago & others to try or dispose of the same, in and/or alongside ELC E365 of 2022 Jacob Ayora v Peter Boniface Njiru, Michael Karago and Anthony Mwangi, and or issue any further orders as may be appropriate including an order of stay MCELC E385 of 2022-Peter Boniface Mwangi & others v Michael Karago & Others to await and abide the outcome in ELC E365 of 2022 Jacob Ayora v Peter Boniface Njiru, Michael Karago and Anthony Mwangi. 4. The Honorable court be and is hereby pleased, to grant any further appropriate orders that may give effect to the orders above. ELC L MISC. CAUSE NO. E220 OF 2024 Ruling Page 2 of 7 5. Each party bears its own cots of this application. 2. The application is premised on grounds on its face and on the 1st Applicant’s supporting affidavit. He avers that the Respondents are unlawfully interfering with Plots No. C20 and C21 situated at Komarock, Saika which he was allotted by Nairobi City County and was issued with an Allotment Letter and Beacon Certificates around the year 2001. Further, that he later developed the properties by constructing a building from which he operated a bar and restaurant and later incorporated the 2nd Applicant to form the 3rd Applicant. 3. He claims that they were in peaceful occupation until August 2022 when the Respondents devised a plan to grab the suit properties. Further, that the Respondents also proceeded to file ELC E365 of 2022 in which they also sought to have Milimani ELC E385 of 2022 consolidated with it, but their prayer for consolidation was dismissed. He contends that issues in the two suits are similar, therefore there is risk that the Court could make contradictory orders should the two ELC L MISC. CAUSE NO. E220 OF 2024 Ruling Page 3 of 7 suits not be consolidated or Milimani MCELC 385 of 2022 stayed. Response 4. The application is opposed by the Respondents vide the 1st Respondent’s replying affidavit. He avers that no contradicting decisions will be issued if the impugned suits proceed independently as the suit at the Magistrate’s Court surrounds Plot No. C-21 and not C-23, which is the subject property before the Environment & Land Court thus there is no justification for staying or consolidating the proceedings. He also claims that he is the lawful owner of Plot No. C-21 and that the Applicants unlawfully encroached onto the property. 5. The application was canvassed by way of written submissions. Submissions 6. The Applicants insist that MCELC No. E385 of 2022 should abide with the judgment in ELC No. E365 of 2022 because ELC L MISC. CAUSE NO. E220 OF 2024 Ruling Page 4 of 7 both suits concern substantially the same dispute over ownership of Plots C20 and C21 as in the latter suit, this Court has already conclusively determined the ownership dispute surrounding the said properties in its judgment delivered on 29th July 2025, which affirmed their ownership of the suit properties. 7. They also submit that the Respondents are estopped from claiming that the two suits concern different issues, having previously sought consolidation of the same suits on the basis that they involved similar questions of law and fact. 8. To buttress their averments, the Applicants relied on the following decisions: Muchanga Investments Limited V Safaris Unlimited (Africa) Ltd & 2 Others (2009) eKLR; Jimas Corporation Limited v Purity Njeri Kinyanjui (2022) eKLR and Hangzhou Agrochemicals Industries Ltd. v Panda Flowers Ltd [2012] eKLR. 9. The Respondents did not file submissions. ELC L MISC. CAUSE NO. E220 OF 2024 Ruling Page 5 of 7 Analysis and Determination 10. The Applicants seek stay of MCELC E385 OF 2022-Peter Boniface Mwangi & others v Michael Karago & Others to await and abide the outcome in ELC E365 OF 2022 Jacob Ayora v Peter Boniface Njiru, Michael Karago and Anthony Mwangi. 11. The Court takes judicial notice that ELC No. E365 of 2022 has already been heard to conclusion. Judgment in that matter, which was delivered on 29th July 2025, was filed by Counsel for the Applicants. The Court determined the question of ownership of Plots C20 and C21 wherein it affirmed that the Applicants own the said two plots. 12. The prayer for stay of MCELC E 385 OF 2022 pending determination of ELC No. E365 of 2022 is therefore spent. 13. In the foregoing, and since judgement has already been delivered in ELC No. E365 of 2022, I find that the Orders ELC L MISC. CAUSE NO. E220 OF 2024 Ruling Page 6 of 7 sought in the instant application cannot issue as they have been overtaken by events. 14. In the circumstances, I find the instant Notice of Motion application merited but compromised. 15. Costs will be in the cause. DATED SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 9TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 CHRISTINE OCHIENG JUDGE In the presence of: Lusi and Akola for Applicant Court Assistant: Vena ELC L MISC. CAUSE NO. E220 OF 2024 Ruling Page 7 of 7