Dickson Mwaringa Runya & 2 others v David Muchiri Mugo [2022] KEELC 1813 (KLR)

The court applied the three parameters: common questions of law or fact, rights or reliefs arising from the same transaction, and absence of prejudice or undue advantage. It found the five suits involve almost the same parties, the same subject matter (the suit properties), and the same advocates. The causes of action - adverse possession and injunction/eviction claims - can be consolidated at any stage. None of the suits had been finally determined, and hearing them together would avoid conflicting decisions and abuse of process.

Relying on David Kabungu v Zikarenga, the court noted the burden lies on the applicant for transfer to make out a strong case. It found the suit properties in the chief magistrates' court suits are the same or intertwined with those in the ELC suits, so orders in the superior courts would affect the lower court suits. The multiplicity of suits was meant to defeat justice and delay conclusion of the issues, warranting transfer under Section 18(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Act.

The plaintiffs argued consolidation should fail because some suits were commenced by Plaint and others by Originating Summons. The court rejected this, reasoning that once directions are taken under Order 37 Rules 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010, the Originating Summons suit will be converted into a Plaint with the Replying Affidavit becoming the Defence/Counterclaim, disadvantaging no party.