[2016] KEHC 5864 (KLR)
The court found that both HCCC No. 11 of 2006 and HCCC No. 82 of 2009 (O.S) involve the same parties and the same subject matter, namely LR MWIMBI/S. MUGUMANGO/305. The issues in both suits are closely related, with one suit concerning adverse possession and the other concerning alleged trespass. The court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 5864 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Rukenya Buri; Defendant: M'Arimi Minyora; Defendant: Dirick Kiruja; Defendant: Mugendi M'Arimi
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 11 of 2006
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Consolidation of Suits
- Outcome
- application allowed
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Consolidation of Suits, Adverse Possession, Trespass to Land
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Rukenya Buri
Plaintiff
M'Arimi Minyora
Defendant
Dirick Kiruja
Defendant
Mugendi M'Arimi
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Consolidation of Suits
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether High Court Civil Case No. 11 of 2006 and High Court Civil Case No. 82 of 2009 (O.S) should be consolidated and heard together.
- 2 Whether consolidation would prejudice any party or serve the interests of justice.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that both HCCC No. 11 of 2006 and HCCC No. 82 of 2009 (O.S) involve the same parties and the same subject matter, namely LR MWIMBI/S. MUGUMANGO/305. The issues in both suits are closely related, with one suit concerning adverse possession and the other concerning alleged trespass. The court determined that consolidating the suits would promote judicial efficiency and avoid conflicting decisions. As there was no opposition to the application and no party would suffer prejudice, the court allowed the consolidation of the two suits to be heard and determined together.
Court Disposition
application allowed
Orders
- High Court Civil Case No. 11 of 2006 and High Court Civil Case No. 82 of 2009 (O.S) are consolidated and will be heard and determined together.
- Costs of the application to be provided for.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU
CIVIL SUIT NO 11 OF 2006
RUKENYA BURI......................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
M'ARIMI MINYORA.......................1ST DEFENDANT
DIRICK KIRUJA …........................2ND DEFENDANT
MUGENDI M'ARIMI …..................3RD DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The Court heard an Oral Application by Advocate Gatari Ringera for consolidation of HCCC NO. 82 of 2009 (OS) and HCCC 11 of 2006.
There is miscellaneous application No. 71 of 2012 filed by Advocate I.C. Mugo for the applicants, Dirick Mugambi and Mugendi M'Arimi, which is dated 31/07/2012 and seeks orders:-
That the High Court Case No. 11 of 2006 and High Court Civil Case No. 82 of 2009 (OC) Be consolidated and heard and determined together by this Honourable Court.
The costs of this application be provided for.
The application is supported by the affidavit of Dirick Mugambi and has the following grounds:-
That the applicants herein are the Plaintiffs in HCCC NO. 82 OF 2009 (O.S) while the respondent is the defendant.
That the Respondent is the Plaintiff in HCCC NO. 11 OF 2006 while the Applicants are 2nd and 3rd Defendants in the said case.
That the subject matter in HCCC NO. 11 OF 2006 & HCCC NO 82 OF 2009 (O.S) is the same to wit LRMWIMBI/S.MUGUMANGO/305.
That the applicants in HCCC NO. 82 of 2009 (O.C) claim that they have acquired by adverse possession LR. MWIMBI/S. MUGUMANGO/305 while the plaintiff in HCCC No 11 OF 2006 claims the the applicants herein are trespassers into his land that he holds absolutely and free from any encumbrances.
That since the subject matter of the two suits HCCC No. 11 OF2006 and HCCC NO. 82 OF 2009 (O.S) is the same and litigants are the same, it will save the Court's precious time if the two suits are consolidated and heard together by the Honourable Court.
That determination of issue of trespass cannot determine the issue of adverse possession but if the issues of adverse possession are determined the same will determine the issue of trespass and hence the two suits.
No party stands to suffer any prejudice if the suits are consolidated, heard and determined by this Honourable Court.
On 02/03/2016, Mr. Gatari Ringera, representing the Respondent intimated to Court that he did not oppose the application. In the Circumstances, the application is allowed with the effect that the apposite suits are consolidated.
It is so ordered.
Delivered in Open Court at Meru this 2nd day of March, 2016 in the presence of.
CC: Lilian/ Daniel
Gatari Ringera for the Respondent
P. M. NJOROGE
JUDGE