REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI MILIMANI LAW COURTS ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT ELC. NO. 527 OF 2012 STANLEY WECHULI SIMIYU............................................................APPLICANT VERSUS STEPHEN KIBE GAKURU AND NANCY WANJIKU KIBE (BOTH T/A KIWANJI ENTERPRISES)..................................1ST RESPONDENT JOHN VUTI T/A COSTA PROPERTIES..............................2ND RESPONDENT RULING Notice of Motion dated 2nd October 2015 seeks for the consolidation of this suit with ELC. No. 121 of 2013. In this suit, the Applicant, Stanley Wechuli Simiyu is seeking to be declared the owner of two parcels of land being Plot No. 6845/120/13 and 6845/120/6, both of which are subdivisions of the larger parcel of land known as LR No. 6845/120. The Applicant has in this suit sued Stephen Kibe Gakuru and Nancy Wanjiku Kibe both trading as Kiwanji Enterprises as well as John Vuti trading as Costa Properties. In ELC. No. 121 of 2013, the Plaintiffs are Stephen Kibe Gakuru and Nancy Wanjiku Kibe while the Defendants are 7. The 7th Defendants is the Plaintiff in this suit namely Stanley Wechuli Simiyu. The parties in both suits are therefore the same except that in the ELC. 121 of 2013, there are 6 more Defendants. The subject matter of the two suits is also the same being LR. No. 6845/120 to which the Plaintiffs lay claim and subdivisions which Stanley Wechuli Simiyu is laying claim over. In both suits therefore, the parties and the subject matter is the same. In the circumstances, both suits be and are hereby consolidated with the lead file being ELC. NO.121 of 2013. Costs in the cause. DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN NAIROBI THIS 19th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2016. MARY M. GITUMBI JUDGE
Original judgment
Stanley Wechuli Simiyu v Stephen Kibe Gakuru & Nancy Wanjiku Kibe (both t/a Kiwanji Enterprises) & another [2016] KEELC 1218 (KLR)
A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.