https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/8804

Pevans East Africa Ltd & 4 others v Nation Media Group Ltd & 7 others (Civil Case E018 of 2022) [2026] KEHC 8804 (KLR) (Civ) (8 June 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 8804 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) Civil Civil Case E018 of 2022 Sifuna Nixon, J June 8, 2026 Between Pevans East Africa Limited 1st Plaintiff Milestone Games Limited 2nd Plaintiff Ronald Kamwiko Karauri 3rd Plaintiff Nikolov Guerassim Nikolov 4th Plaintiff Gene Grand 5th Plaintiff and Nation Media Group Limited 1st Defendant John Kamau 2nd Defendant Finance Uncovered Limited 3rd Defendant Paul Wafula 4th Defendant Paul Wanderi Ndung’u 5th Defendant Google LLC 6th Defendant Youtube LLC 7th Defendant Google Kenya Limited 8th Defendant Ruling 1.By his Application dated 8th July 2025, the 5th Respondent Paul Wanderi Ndung’u, is seeking the following orders:1.The striking out of the part of this suit as is against the 5th Defendant.2.The consolidation of this suit, with the following suits- Nairobi HC Commercial Suit No. E002 of 2023, Nairobi HC Commercial Suit No. E284 of 2022, Nairobi HC Judicial Review No. E061 of 2020, NAIROBI HC Judicial Review No. E091 of 2022, Nairobi HC Judicial Review No. E138 of 2022, and Nairobi HC Commercial Suit No. E162 of 2022; which suits are listed in Prayer 4 of this Application.3.That in the alternative, those matters be all heard together consecutively. 2.The Plaintiffs have opposed the Application, through a Replying Affidavit sworn by Ronald Kamwiko Karauri the 3rd Plaintiff. Their opposition is mainly that these matters are not consolidatable. As that, this will offend the legal principles of consolidation of suits; and also that the legal threshold under Order 2 Rule 15 has not been met. 3.The Application was canvassed through written submissions. With each party filing its submissions, and later highlighting them. ed by the parties. The Applicant’s submissions are dated 30th September 2025. While the Respondents’ submissions are dated 29th September 2025. 4.While highlighting the Applicant’s submissions, his Advocate Mr Kosgei maintained that the suits were capable of consolidation, and that the legal threshold under Order 2 Rule 15 has been met. That from the pleadings generally, the question for determination is a commercial question relating to disposition of the assets of Pevans East Africa Ltd the 1st Plaintiff (herein after referred to as Pevans), and their subsequent acquisition by the 2nd Plaintiff. 5.That this suit is wrongly in the High Court Civil Division; as that this is a commercial dispute and not a defamation claim. Further that the 5th Defendant is mentioned remotely in the Plaint, and that there is no element of defamation. 6.That the alleged material does not mention the Plaintiffs; and there is no cause of action against the 5th Defendant. Hence that there is bad faith in the manner the Plaintiffs have dragged the 5th Defendant to court. That on the prayer for striking out, the real reason why the suit was filed, was to stop him from pursuing his interest in PEVANS. As that there is no relationship between him and the cause of action. 7.On the prayer for consolidation, the Applicant has in his Application and in his filed submissions, stated that these suits should be consolidated or heard together; so that the issue of property in those companies is determined by a competent court. As that the Plaintiffs themselves have admitted that the issues in contention are the same. 8.In their opposition, the Plaintiffs have argued that this suit was filed in 2022. That the Applicant as 5th Defendant, filed a Defence, and which is on record. That interim orders were issued. That he defied them, and was subsequently found to be in contempt of court. That this Application is an afterthought, calculated to scuttle the proceedings. 9.That the subject matter of this suit is that the defendants published material accusing Plaintiffs of crime, fraud, cartelism. That the suits that this Application is urging the court to consolidate, cannot be consolidated with this one. As that the cause of action in this suit is defamation, while the causes of action in those other suits are different and relate to:a.Expulsion of members;b.Members and shareholding;c.Stopping the use of Paybill numbers;d.Issuance of licences; ande.The use of the Trademark Sport Pesa; and the transfer of the trademark Sport Pesa. 10.That none of these suits is on defamation; and that they are at different stages. That some are even at the appellate stage in the Court of Appeal. That for this suit, it is a defamation suit, where pleadings closed, and it was at the hearing stage. Hence that there is nothing to consolidate. Further that it should instead be fixed for hearing. 11.That the 5th Defendant is by multiple applications attempting to use the pendency of this suit, to continue defaming the Plaintiffs by purporting to be reporting what is going on in these cases. Analysis and Determination 12.I have read the Application, its Supporting Affidavit, the Applicant’s Further Affidavit, and his written submissions. I have also read the Respondents’ filed Response (the 3rd Plaintiff’s Replying Affidavit), and their written submissions. I have as later set out in this ruling, also considered the applicable legal principles, the relevant legal provisions, and the case law cited by the parties in their submissions. 13.There are two main issues that I have to determine in this Application. Namely, (a) Whether to strike out from this suit, the claim against the 5th Defendant Paul Wanderi Ndung’u, and (b) Whether this suit should be consolidated with the listed suits and heard together. There is also the issue of whether this suit is wrongly in the High Court Civil Division. Although a side issue, I will address it in my determination. 14.Before I move to determine the crux of this Application, let me address a concern raised by the Applicant. I call it a concern, because it was not raised as an objection to jurisdiction. He has contended that this suit is wrongly in the High Court Civil Division. Although a side issue, it is steadily gaining traction and notoriety among litigants and their litigators. So much so that it needs to be addressed. 15.The jurisdiction of the High Court, is conferred by Article 165 of the Constitution. Not an Act of Parliament. The organization of the High Court into divisions, is merely organizational and not jurisdictional. It does not divest any division or Judge, of jurisdiction to handle any matter that is reserved for the High Court. Such organization being by dint of the High Court (Organization and Administration) Act (Act No. 27 of 2015). 16.There is only one High Court in this country- the High Court of Kenya. Hence every High Court Judge has jurisdiction to handle any High Court matter, irrespective of the High Court Division. Afterall it is not the Division that handles matters, but the Judges.The High Court (Organization and Administration) Act is merely a house-keeping regiment; aimed at organization and administration. It neither confers jurisdiction nor divests any High Court Judge of jurisdiction. Let me now turn to the two issues for determination.On the Prayer for Striking Out. 17.The 5th Defendant Paul Wanderi Ndung’u, has in this Application urged this Court, to strike out from this suit, the claim against him. On the court’s power of striking out suits, C.B Madan JA (as he was) in DT Dobbie Co. Ltd v. Joseph Mbaria Muchina [1982] KLR 1, urged courts to exercise their striking out power sparing; and only suits that are so hopeless that life cannot be breathed into them, even by way of amendment of the pleadings. The learned Judge specifically stated as follows:“No suit ought to be summarily dismissed unless it appears so hopeless that it plainly and obviously discloses no reasonable cause of action and is so weak as to be beyond redemption, and incurable by amendment.” 18.Kenyan courts have time without number, similarly held in subsequent cases. On carefully perusing the Plaint, this cannot be said of this suit. Generally, the grievances raised by the Plaintiffs in the Plaint, relate to him; the reliefs sought in this suit will affect him; there is a nexus between him and the Plaintiffs’ cause of action, hence he cannot be said to be a total stranger to this suit. Besides, he has filed a Defence in this suit; and which Defence raises triable issues that should be adjudicated upon a full trial. For these reasons, the prayer for striking out, is hereby declined. On the Prayer for Consolidation 19.The Court’s power to consolidate suits, is a discretionary one. To be consolidated, the suits must have arisen from the same transaction; they should involve common questions of law or fact; and have a common cause of action. Indeed, consolidation is intended to save the judicial time and judicial resources that could otherwise be expended on separate trials. Thus, saving judicial time, and also ensuring efficient utilization of judicial resources. 20.The Court will be reluctant to consolidate:a.Where the legal issues are different;b.Where the suits involve different procedural regimes; orc.Where the suits are invoking different jurisdictional streams or procedural regimes. 21.In this Application for instance, the suits intended for consolidation, are distinctly varied, and cut across a wide spectrum of causes of action. Namely:(1)Defamation;(2)Judicial review and(3)Commercial litigation. 22.A defamation suit is one for relief relating to injury to reputation. It is a tort law claim seeking tort law reliefs such as damages, and invoking the Court’s common law jurisdiction. 23.A judicial review motion for its part, seeks prerogative orders such as mandamus, certiorari and prohibition. It invokes the Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts and administrative entities exercising quasi-judicial functions. They are special proceedings invoking a special jurisdiction of the Court; and in which the Court is neither exercising its civil jurisdiction nor criminal jurisdiction. 24.Commercial suits for their part are suits litigating disputes of a commercial nature. For instance infringement of trademarks, or that relate to commercial transactions, or those that touch on company law. 25.I find that the matters that this Application has sought to consolidate, are distinctly varied causes of action, with different and distinct judicial pathways that invoke different jurisdictional streams of the Court. Namely, a defamation suit alleging injury to reputation, judicial review applications, and a commercial suit. As already observed in this ruling, judicial review Application unlike an ordinary civil suit or a commercial suit, invoke a special jurisdiction of the court. 26.The rationale behind consolidation is the interest of justice, as well as judicial economy- in terms of judicial time and judicial resources. Its overriding objective being to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate, and affordable resolution of disputes. Consolidation will lie where separate trials/hearings of the subject suits will lead to duplication of evidence, inconsistent findings of fact, conflicting decisions, and unnecessary expense. 27.The frequently cited case where the legal test for an Application for consolidation was reiterated, is Law Society of Kenya v. Centre for Human Rights and Democracy & Others [2014] eKLR. Which the Applicant cited in his submissions, and in which the Supreme Court of Kenya stated that consolidation will lie, where:a.There are common questions of law or fact;b.The suits arise from the same transaction or series of transactions; andc.The consolidation will serve the interest of justice and the efficient disposal of suits. 28.Not for instance, where the suits intended for consolidation involve distinct causes of action, different legal principles, different remedies, different procedural frameworks, or different judicial pathways. For instance a judicial review matter, a defamation suit and a commercial dispute as is the case in this Application. In such circumstances, the court will decline consolidation; even if those matters arise from related facts, or the parties are the same. 29.May I add that, in my very considered view, for a court to allow consolidation of suits, compatibility is a key consideration. Some causes of action and some judicial proceedings, are just not compatible. Compatibility in terms of the subject matter and the jurisdictional streams as well as judicial pathways. I find that the suits the Application seeks to consolidate, are not compatible. 30.For these reasons, the prayer for consolidation, is hereby declined. Final Disposition 31.In the end, this Application fails and is hereby dismissed with costs. DATED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI ON THIS 8TH DAY OF JUNE 2026.PROF (DR) NIXON SIFUNAJUDGE