Lukorito v Siror (Being Sued as the Guardian Ad Litem of Micheal Bett Siror) (Environment and Land Case 26 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 5490 (KLR)

4. When the application for consolidation came up, Miss Waweru advocate, opposed the application on the basis that the suits sought to be consolidated are at various stages of their prosecution, where orders have been granted in favour of some parties, in the course of their hearing. Learned counsel submitted that the proposed consolidation will prejudice some of the parties who have had their cases closed or evidence tendered, since they will be subjected to the re-opening of their cases to have their matters start de novo, to accommodate the new entrant to the dispute. 5. Further, learned counsel submitted that the application is brought too late in the day, especially for the closed files, where parties would sufier gravely if the matters, once consolidated, ought to start de novo. Learned counsel alluded to having filed a replying afidavit, which the court has not been able to trace. 6. Looking at the suits, in ELC No. 26 of 2019, vide a plaint dated 27/3/2019, the plaintifi is seeking revocation of titles, specific performance, and a permanent injunction over the suit property. The defendant in that suit has termed the suit as res judicata, Kitale HCCC No.136 of 2000(OS) and is statute-barred, given that the suit property has already been subdivided and lease certificates issued. 7. In ELC Civil Suit No.117 of 2016, the plaintifi, through a plaint dated 28/7/2016, prays to be declared the owner of 36 acres under his occupation, to be excised out of the suit property and that the defendants transfer the same to him. Further, the plaintifi avers that upon sale of the 36 acres, he paid part of the consideration to Agricultural Finance Corporation to ofiset the defendant’s loan facility that was in arrears. There are a total of 13 witnesses to the suit. 8. The defendant, through a statement of defence dated 30/8/2016, termed the suit as res judicata, timebarred, an abuse of the court process, founded on perjury and contempt of court, non-suited and an abuse of the court process. The court record indicates that parties were directed to comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 9. Regarding ELC No. 96 of 2015, the plaintifi prays for a declaration that the defendant was holding 300 acres in trust for him and those claiming under him. He sought the subdivision of the suit property and transfer of the said 300 acres, costs and interests in his plaint dated 17/7/2015. The defendant filed a statement of defence dated 14/9/2015. He averred that the suit was time-barred and an abuse of the court process, in view of various suits stated therein. 10. On 27/4/2016, the court dismissed an application by the defendant seeking to have the suit struck out for lack of consent from the land control board, for being statute-barred and an abuse of the court process. The matter was last mentioned on 16/9/2019 and has since been inactive. Mr. Kiarie, counsel for the plaintifi in that suit, stated that it had since abated and that it went up to the Court of Appeal. 11. In ELC Civil Suit No. EO33 of 2024; there is an application due for directions before this court on 7/8/2025. The main suit is based on the plaint dated 6/9/2024, where the plaintifi prays inter alia, that the 1st defendant holds the suit parcel in trust for 21 persons, cancellation of the subdivisions, permanent and temporary injunction. The plaint has since been amended and parties are yet to comply with Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules. 12. Section 80(h) of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 11 Rule 3(1)(b) of the Civil Procedure Rules provide for the consolidation of suits. In Benson G. Mutahi -vs- Raphael Gichovi Munene Kabutu & 4 others [2014] KEELC 660 (KLR), the court observed that consolidation of suits is aimed at a comprehensive examination of all questions of law and facts, which would expedite the resolution of all related issues. Consolidation of suits also minimizes the risk of confiicting judgments if the matters are handled independently. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5490/eng@2025-07-23 2

page 2 of 3

13. InLaw Society of Kenya -vs- Centre for Human Rights and Democracy & 12 others (Petition 14 of 2013) [2014] KESC 29 (KLR) (8 April 2014) (Ruling), the court held that consolidation allows for a holistic consideration of the evidence and the arguments, it enables the court to make informed and concise decisions on matters at hand. 14. Similarly, it was observed that consolidation aims at bringing about savings of resources and costs, which serve the interests of all parties involved. See Korean United Church of Kenya & 3 others -vsSeung Ho Song [2014] KEHC 7634 (KLR). 15. The principles to consider are; a. Whether similar questions of law or facts arise in both cases. b. Whether the right or relief claimed in the two matters or more arises out of a similar transaction or series of transactions. c. Whether any party will be disadvantaged or prejudiced, or conferred with undue advantage. 16. InPrem Lala Nahata & Anor -vs- Chandi Prasad Sikaria (2007) 2 SCC 551, the Supreme Court of India held that the court has powers to consolidate appropriate suits to save costs, time, efiort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. 17. Expeditious disposal of cases in a cost-efiective manner is what Articles 159 of the Constitution, Sections 1A, 1B, and 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act envisage. It promotes judicial economy, so long as no party is prejudiced. 18. From the case law cited above, my finding is that justice of the suits does not call for their consolidation. Parties stand to sufier grave prejudice if the suits are consolidated since, despite involving one common defendant over the same suit property, the causes of action are evidently difierent and some suits involve difierent parties, issues for determination and are at advanced stages. 19. The application dated 3/2/2025 is therefore dismissed. 20. Orders accordingly. RULING DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT KITALE ON THIS 23RD DAY OF JULY 2025. HON. C.K. NZILI JUDGE, ELC KITALE. In the presence of: Court Assistant - Dennis Onyango for the plaintifi in ELC No. 117 of 2016 present Kipruto for Lagat for plaintifi in ELC No. 26 of 2019 present Miss Waweru for Katwa for the defendants in ELC No. 117 of 2016 present Wasilwa for plaintifis in ELC No.26 of 2019. Mr. Wainaina for Mr. Momanyi for the defendants in ELC No. 26 of 2019. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5490/eng@2025-07-23 3

page 3 of 3