Bernard Gachie Kamau v Livingstone W. Kinyanjui & 23 others [2018] KEELC 2769 (KLR)
The bottom line
#What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the matter in issue in the present suit is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties (Section 6, Civil Procedure Act)
Yes; both suits concern Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/3758, the parties are almost the same and litigate under the same title, and the prayers sought are the same, so a stay under Section 6 is warranted
The court compared the Plaint in both suits and found that the bone of contention is Ruiru/Kiu Block 2/3758; the Plaintiff in this suit seeks a declaration of bona fide proprietorship and cancellation of resultant titles, which are the same prayers as in CMCC No.879 of 2010, a previously instituted suit. The parties are almost the same and litigate under the same title, so allowing parallel hearings risks conflicting decisions by courts of concurrent jurisdiction.
Whether consolidation of the two suits would better serve justice than a stay
No; consolidation would delay the advanced Thika suit contrary to the overriding objective
CMCC No.879 of 2010 is an old matter at an advanced stage, with the Plaintiffs' case closed and further defence hearing scheduled. Consolidation would delay its finalisation, contrary to Sections 1A and 1B. The issues raised by the Plaintiff can be adequately dealt with in the Thika suit, so the appropriate remedy is a stay of this suit.
Legal principles established
#- Under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, a court shall not proceed with the trial of a suit where the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit between the same parties or parties litigating under the same title, pending in a court with jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed
- The power to stay proceedings in the face of parallel proceedings is a judicial discretion to be exercised judicially, rationally and in the interests of justice
Court orders
#- 1.Stay of this suit and/or proceedings until CMCC No.879 of 2010 at Thika Law Courts is heard and determined
- 2.Costs of the application to be in the cause
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap 21 Laws of Kenya; Section 6 thereof (stay of parallel suits)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Bernard Gachie Kamau v Livingstone W. Kinyanjui & 23 others [2018] KEELC 2769 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Notice of Motion dated 1st August 2017 (suit file number not stated in judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/2769/eng@2018-06-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.