Ole Kudate & 2 others v Ole Nchui & 5 others (Environment and Land Case E117 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 3426 (KLR) (28 May 2026) (Ruling)

 **REPUBLIC OF KENYA** **IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT** **ELC L CASE NO. E117 OF 2024** **NTAI OLE KUDATE.....................................1ST PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT** **ISAAC KORES OLE MEMURUTI………2ND PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT** **KARIUKI OLE KIPISH………….………..3RD PLAINTIFF/ RESPONDENT** **VERSUS** **DANIEL NG’OTIEK OLE NCHUI……. 1ST DEFENDANT/ APPLICANT** **NG’OTIEK OLE MESHOLOLO…......... 2ND DEFENDANT/ APPLICANT** **DAVID SELELA RAKUA……………….3RD DEFENDANT/ APPLICANT** **JULIUS MATILONG KAREI.……..........4TH DEFENDANT/ APPLICANT** **GEOFLEX CONSULTANTS LIMITED…5TH DEFENDANT/APPLICANT** **OLDONYONYOKIE GROUP RANCH..6TH DEFENDANT/ APPLICANT** **RULING** 1. In the **Application dated 8th December 2025**, the Defendants/Applicants seek stay of proceedings in **MCELC No. E090 of 2025** and any other suits filed at the subordinate Courts involving the subject matter- Kajiado/Oldonyonyokie/3. They further seek transfer and consolidation of **Kajiado MCELC No. E090 of 2025** as well as **Kajiado ELC No. E017 of 2023** with this suit, and that the matter proceeds as a representative suit under **Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules** on behalf of members of Oldonyonyokie Group Ranch. And that any member of the group ranch be at liberty to apply for joinder. 2. The Application is premised on the grounds that on 15th October 2025 the Court dismissed the Plaintiffs’ application for injunctive reliefs and that previous attempts to obtain similar reliefs in Kajiado ELC No. E017 of 2023 had also failed. Notwithstanding pendency of these suits, fresh suits have been instituted in subordinate courts, including MCELC No. E090 of 2025, seeking similar orders over parcel No. Kajiado/Oldonyonyokie/3. The subordinate court suit being a replica of the present proceedings is akin to forum shopping and relitigation of issues already before this Court. 3. The Applicants state that allowing these multiple suits to proceed concurrently risks conflicting judicial decisions, and is a wastage of judicial time. They therefore urge the Court to allow the application in the interests of justice and proper administration of justice stating that consolidation of the related suits would facilitate coherent, consistent and efficient determination of the disputes touching on the suit property. 4. Counsel for the Applicants submit that that all the affected parties derive their interests from the same parcel of land and share common questions of law and fact concerning ownership, subdivision, occupation, and group ranch membership. Relying on authorities on representative suits and consolidation, they argue that the matters involve substantially similar issues and that consolidation would prevent multiplicity of suits, save judicial time, and avoid conflicting decisions. 5. The Applicants further invoke **Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act** on the doctrine of *sub judice*, contending that MCELC No. E090 of 2025 raises issues directly and substantially similar to those in the present suit. They maintain that allowing parallel proceedings would occasion conflicting judgments and prejudice the parties. They therefore urge the Court to stay the subordinate court proceedings and allow the application in the interests of justice and efficient administration of justice. 6. At the time of writing this Ruling, the Plaintiffs/Respondents had not filed their submissions. 7. Having considered the application, the issues for determination are whether Kajiado ELC No. E017 of 2023 should be consolidated with the present suit; whether Kajiado MCELC No. E090 of 2025 should be transferred to this Court for consolidation with the present suit and whether the consolidated suit should proceed as a representative. 8. **Order 11 Rule 3(1)(h)** of the **Civil Procedure Rules** expressly empowers the Court, in furtherance of expeditious disposal of cases and effective case management, to consider consolidation of suits. Further, **Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act** impose upon the Court the overriding objective of facilitating the just, expeditious, proportionate and affordable resolution of civil disputes. 9. The guiding principles on consolidation were succinctly stated by the Supreme Court in **Law Society of Kenya v Centre for Human Rights and Democracy & 12 others [2014] KESC 29 (KLR)** where the Court held that: *“… The essence of consolidation is to facilitate the efficient and expeditious disposal of disputes and to provide a framework for a fair and impartial dispensation of justice to the parties. Consolidation was never meant to confer any undue advantage upon the party that seeks it, nor was it intended to occasion any disadvantage towards the party that opposes it...”* 1. The Supreme Court further emphasized that consolidation is appropriate where suits raise similar questions of law or fact and where joint determination would serve the interests of justice. 2. In **Republic v Sub-County Co-operative Officer-Subukia Ex parte Jumatatu Farmers Co-operative Society Limited [2021] KEHC 6271 (KLR)** the Court held: *32. Allahabad High Court of India in P.P. Gupta vs East Asiatic Co. Air 1960 All 184, the Court also adopted the above position in the following terms:-* *“The very nature of the principle of consolidation implies that there is a similarity or identity of the matter in issue in different suits between the same parties which should be decided by the court once and for all. The object of consolidation is to avoid multiplicity of litigation between the same parties whenever the matter in issue is substantially and directly the same.”* 1. The court has had occasion to peruse Kajiado ELC No E 017 of 2023 through the Case Tracking System. The system indicates that the said matter was withdrawn on 27th October 2025 and case marked as closed. As such it cannot be consolidated with this matter. 2. On whether Kajiado MCELC No. E090 of 2025 should be transferred and consolidated with the instant suit, S**ection 18(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act** gives this Court supervisory and transfer jurisdiction over subordinate courts in matters falling within its jurisdiction. The facts on record disclose that Kajiado MCELC No. E090 of 2025, filed before the Magistrates Court concerns the very same land parcel Kajiado/Oldonyonyokie/3, that is the subject of both the instant suit and Kajiado ELC E017 of 2023. This offends the tenets of **Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act** which estops Courts from *proceeding with trial of any suit or proceeding in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit or proceeding between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title, where such suit or proceeding is pending in the same court or any other court having jurisdiction in Kenya to grant the relief claimed*. 3. As such, allowing it to continue at the subordinate court concurrently with this suit would not only offend the sub-judice rule but would be against the spirit of the Constitution on protecting the integrity of the judicial process. 4. I am therefore satisfied that grounds exist for this Court to exercise its jurisdiction to withdraw Kajiado MCELC No. E090 of 2025 from the subordinate court and transfer it to this Court for consolidation with the instant suit. 5. On whether the consolidated suit should proceed as a representative, at the heart of these proceedings is land parcel No. Kajiado/Oldonyonyokie/3 owned by Oldonyonyokie Group Ranch. The Applicants have demonstrated that multiple suits have already been instituted by different parties over the same parcel seeking substantially similar reliefs. The multiplicity of proceedings itself is indicative of the broad and collective nature of the interests involved. The Plaintiffs in the different suits seek reliefs that will affect interests of all members of the Group Ranch. 6. **Order 1 Rule 8(1) of the Civil Procedure Rules** expressly provides that *where numerous persons have the same interest in any proceedings, the proceedings may be commenced, and unless the Court otherwise orders, continued, by or against any one or more of them as of all in same representing all or as representing all except one or more of them*. 7. The Court is satisfied that the members of Oldonyonyokie Group Ranch whose interests are implicated in these proceedings possess a common and identifiable interest in the subject matter of the litigation. Therefore, proceeding by way of a representative suit would serve the interests of justice by avoiding a multiplicity of suits over the same property; preventing conflicting decisions by different courts; facilitating efficient and comprehensive adjudication of disputes touching on the suit property; and ensuring that all affected members are adequately represented in the proceedings. 8. The Court is also mindful that **Order 1 Rule 8(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules** requires notice of the institution of a representative suit to be given to all persons intended to be represented, either by personal service or public advertisement as the Court may direct also as held by the Court of Appeal in **Yiapas Ole Seese & 4 others v Sakita Ole Narok & 2 others [2008] KECA 223 (KLR)**, 9. The Application dated 8th December 2025 therefore succeeds with orders that: 10. **Kajiado MCELC No. E090 of 2025 be and is hereby withdrawn from the Magistrates Court and transferred to this Court for purposes of consolidation with the present suit.** 11. **The present suit shall constitute the lead file for purposes of the consolidated proceedings.** 12. **The consolidated suit shall proceed as a representative suit under Order 1 Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules, on behalf of the members of Oldonyonyokie Group Ranch.** 13. **Pursuant to Order 1 Rule 8(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules, the Defendants/Applicants shall, within thirty (30) days of the date of this ruling, serve notice of these consolidated proceedings upon all members of Oldonyonyokie Group Ranch by public advertisement in at least two newspapers of national circulation. Notices should also be displayed in prominent places in the group ranch.** 14. **Any member of Oldonyonyokie Group Ranch with an interest in the subject matter is at liberty to apply for joinder in the consolidated suit.** 15. **Costs shall abide the outcome of the main suit.** **Dated, Signed and Delivered virtually at Kajiado this 28th day of May 2026.** **JUDY OMANGE** **JUDGE.** **IN THE PRESENCE OF:** Ms. Gichuki for the 1st – 4th Defendants/Respondents. No appearance for the Plaintiff. Peter – Court Assistant.