Manan & another v Estate of Alikhan Rahimkhan & 4 others

b. Kwale ELC Court Case No. 141 of 2021 [Formerly Mombasa ELC No. 135 of 2020] Juma Kanga & 299 Others versus Abdulkadir Rahimkhan & 9 Others c. Kwale ELC case No. 4 of 2024 Abdulkadir Rahimkhan & Jabeen Manan – Versus - County Government of Kwale, Land Registrar Mombasa, National Land Commission, Director of Surveys, Director of Physical Planning & County Executive Committee Member, Lands Natural Resources and Urban Planning, County Government of Kwale. d. Kwale ELC Case No. E004 of 2022. Fred Abuga Onsongo and Jimmy Sausi & Fatuma Mohamed Haji – Versus - Jabeen Mariam Khan , Narriman Khan and 7 Others. II. Background and Proceedings 3. On 13th February 2025, in respect to the application dated 6th May 2024 my sister Hon. Lady Justice A.E Dena delivered a ruling in respect to the case of:- “ELC (Kwale) case No. 4 of 2024 Abdulkadir Rahimkhan & Jabeen Manan - Versus - County Government of Kwale, Land Registrar Mombasa, National Land Commission, Director of Surveys, Director of Physical Planning & County Executive Committee Member, Lands Natural Resources and Urban Planning, County Government of Kwale. 4. Ideally, the Court gave the following directions in her ruling dated 13th February 2025; 40. 5. The upshot of the foregoing therefore is that the application dated 6th May 2024 partly succeeds and is hereby disposed in the following terms; a. That the applicant is hereby granted leave to further amend the Counter - Claim accordingly so as to take into account any other relevant parties that may ultimately be aected by the Orders sought in the Amended Counter - Claim. b. The amendments in 1) above shall be eected and served upon the aected parties within 14 days of the date of this ruling. c. That the consolidation of the suits shall further be considered as part of the case Management conference under the provisions of Order 11. d. Costs shall be in the course. e. The suits herein shall be mentioned on 19th February, 2025 Subsequently, on 19th February 2025 all these matters were placed before this Honourable Court and whereby it gave the following directions:1. There are four (4) matters a. ELCC 141/2021 b. ELCC 168/2021 c. ELCC E004/2022 d. ELCLC 4/2024 2. Where the subject matter is the same. 3. However, the parties maybe slightly dierent but some of them are in all the four matters. 4. The interest maybe dierent by the said parties. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18226/eng@2025-11-13 2

page 2 of 14

5. 6. ELC has delivered a ruling on 13th February 2025. In view of the above the Honourable court will prepared comprehensive directions on this issues to be read out on 9th April 2025. These apply Mutatis Mutandis to all the four (4) matters. III. The brief facts & observations of the cases 6. Upon the presentations by all the Learned Counsels on record, the Honourable Court has made the following observations. Firstly, it is clear that this is a case of multiplicity of suits pertaining to a common subject matter. Secondly, the suits are over that parcel of land known as Land Reference No. 4659 (Original Number. 3855/19) (Hereinafter referred to as “The Suit Property”). 7. The cases are namely a. ELCC 168 of 2021 Jabeen Manan & Abdulkadir Ahemdkhan – Versus - Estate of Alikhan Rahimkhan, Estate of Abdullakhan Rahimkhan, Estate of Abdulhamid Rahimkhan, Hawabai Daugher of Juma & Land Registrar Mombasa. b. Kwale ELC Court Case No. 141 of 2021 [Formerly Mombasa ELC No. 135 of 2020] Juma Kanga & 299 Others - Versus - Abdulkadir Rahimkhan & 9 Others c. Kwale ELC case No. 4 of 2024 Abdulkadir Rahimkhan & Jabeen Manan – Versus - County Government of Kwale, Land Registrar Mombasa, National Land Commission, Director of Surveys, Director of Physical Planning & County Executive Committee Member, Lands Natural Resources and Urban Planning, County Government of Kwale. d. Kwale ELC Case No. E004 of 2022. Fred Abuga Onsongo and Jimmy Sausi & Fatuma Mohamed Haji – Versus - Jabeen Mariam Khan , Narriman Khan and 7 Others. A. ELCC 168 OF 2021 Jabeen Manan & Abdulkadir Ahemdkhan – Versus - Estate Of Alikhan Rahimkhan, Estate Of Abdullakhan Rahimkhan, Estate Of Abdulhamid Rahimkhan, Hawabai Daugher Of Juma & Land Registrar Mombasa. 8. The suit was instituted vide ling of a Plaint dated 29th April 2021 by the Law rm of Messrs. Akanga Matende and Company Advocate. The Plaintis instituted the suit against the Defendants seeking declaratory and injunctive reliefs in respect of all that parcel of land known as Mombasa L.R. No. 4659. 9. The 1st Plainti is described as a female adult of sound mind and a resident of Kwale County, while the 2nd Plainti is described as a male adult of sound mind and a resident of Mombasa County. Both Plaintis appointed Akanga Matende & Co. Advocates, P.O. Box 52162–00200, Nairobi, as their address of service for purposes of this suit. 10. The 1st to 4th Defendants is described as the duly Legal Administrators of the estate of the registered proprietors of the said parcel of land. The 4th Defendant is specically the Land Registrar, Mombasa. 11. The Plaintis’ case that at all material times, the 1st to 3rd Defendants were and remain the registered owners and proprietors of the property known as Mombasa L.R. No. 4659. The Plaintis further averred that the suit property is held under tenancy in common by both the Plaintis and the 1st to 4th Defendants. According to the Plaintis, the 1st Plainti holds one-third (⅓) of one-sixth (#) of the total shares, while the 2nd Plainti holds two-thirds (⅔) of one-sixth (#) of the total shares. 12. The Plaintis contend that by virtue of the said tenancy in common, none of the registered proprietors can alienate, sell, or otherwise dispose of any interest in the property without the express consent of https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18226/eng@2025-11-13 3

page 3 of 14

the others. However, it is alleged that the 1st to 4th Defendants have been engaging third parties with the intention of alienating or selling the property without the Plaintis’ knowledge or consent. 13. It is the Plaintis’ apprehension that, should the Defendants proceed with their intended actions, they would be unlawfully deprived of their proprietary interests in the suit property. They term the Defendants’ conduct as illegal, irregular, and contrary to the provisions of the law governing coownership of property. 14. In view of the foregoing, the Plaintis urge the Court to intervene by issuing an order of injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, or any persons acting under their authority, from selling, alienating, or otherwise interfering with the property known as Mombasa L.R. No. 4659 without their consent. 15. Additionally, the Plaintis pray for an order directing that the said property be severed and/or partitioned in accordance with the individual shares of each registered proprietor and that separate titles be issued forthwith. 16. The Plaintis further state that no statutory notice has been served upon the Defendants due to the urgency of the matter. They also conrm that there is no other suit or previous proceedings pending between the parties over the same subject matter. 17. They aver that this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter. B. ELC NO. 141 OF 2021 – Abdulrahman Khamisi Jabulani – Versus - Director Of Physical Planning Kwale County, Director Of Survey Kwale County, County Land Registrar Kwale, Chief Land Registrar, National Land Commission & The Hon. Attorney General. 18. From the led pleadings, the suit was led in 2021 through a Plaint dated 13th April 2021. The matter before this Court concerns ownership and occupation of all that parcel of land known as Land Reference Number 4659 (Original Number 3855/19), hereinafter referred to as “the Suit Property.” 19. The Plaintis are all adults of sound mind, residing and working for gain in Kwale County. Their address of service for the purposes of this suit is care of M/s John Bwire & Associates Advocates, Palli House, 4th Floor, Nyerere Avenue, P.O. Box 98731–80100, Mombasa. 20. The 1st to 7th Defendants are residents of Kwale County and, at all material times, the registered lease owners of the Suit Property. The 8th Defendant is the Land Registrar, a statutory oce under the Land Act, No. 6 of 2012, and the custodian of land titles and leases in the Coastal Region. 21. The 9th Defendant is the County Government of Kwale, established under the provision of Article 176 (1) of the Constitution, and is responsible for matters relating to land administration within its jurisdiction. The 10th Defendant is the National Land Commission (NLC), a constitutional commission established under the Article 67 of the Constitution, mandated to manage public land on behalf of the national and county governments and to process renewal and extension of government leases. 22. The Plaintis aver that they and their families have resided upon the Suit Property for several decades. During this time, they built permanent homes, planted trees, carried out farming, and used part of the land for grazing. The land, measuring approximately 1,000 acres, is located in the Waa Ngomeni area of Kwale County and is predominantly occupied by members of the Digo community. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18226/eng@2025-11-13 4

page 4 of 14

23. The Plaintis claim that throughout their occupation, they were unaware that the Suit Property was privately owned. To their understanding, it had never been developed or used by any other persons apart from themselves and their families, who had been in continuous and exclusive possession. 24. The Plaintis state that in year 2016, ocers from the National Land Commission, accompanied by Land Surveyors, visited the Suit Property and informed them that the 1st to 7th Defendants had applied for renewal of the lease. The ocers explained that they were conducting a survey to ascertain the current occupation and use of the land. 25. During one of the said visits, the Plaintis were issued with a Planning Brief, purportedly prepared by the 1st to 7th Defendants in support of their application for renewal. The brief indicated that the Defendants had surrendered 400 acres out of the 1,000 acres parcel for the resettlement of squatters, including the Plaintis. 26. The Plaintis further aver that ocers of the NLC and the County Government of Kwale assured them that their interests would be accommodated before any lease renewal was approved. They were informed that ocers from the County Government would undertake a survey to allocate each occupant the portion of land they were currently residing on. 27. The Plaintis claim that after these assurances, there was no further communication from the NLC or the County Government. In year 2017, they formed a land committee to follow up the progress of the proposed resettlement. 28. Upon inquiry, the Plaintis were allegedly informed that the lease held by the 1st to 7th Defendants had expired, and that the land had reverted to the County Government of Kwale to be held in trust for the local community pursuant to the provision of Article 63 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 and the Community Land Act of 2016. 29. Relying on those assurances, the Plaintis continued developing the land and even buried their deceased relatives thereon. They assert that they had a legitimate expectation that they would be allocated part of the land for settlement. 30. The Plaintis allege that contrary to these undertakings, the 1st to 7th Defendants, in collusion with ocers of the NLC, the County Government of Kwale, and the Land Registrar, fraudulently obtained a new lease over the entire 1,000 acres parcel on 6th December 2019, thereby excluding them. 31. The Plaintis particularize the alleged fraud as follows: 32. a). The Defendants issued a new lease despite an earlier proposal to surrender 400 acres for resettlement of squatters. b). The County Government of Kwale colluded with the 1st to 7th Defendants to issue a lease over the entire land. c). The National Land Commission approved the renewal without proper public participation or consideration of the Plaintis’ interests. d. The Land Registrar issued a certicate of lease despite procedural irregularities and lack of transparency. The Plaintis further contend that the renewal of the lease without their consent and without observing principles of public participation was illegal, unconstitutional, and in violation of the legitimate expectations created by the Defendants’ promises. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18226/eng@2025-11-13 5

page 5 of 14

33. It is alleged that following the issuance of the new lease, the 1st to 7th Defendants, with the assistance of ocers from the 9th and 10th Defendants and local police, have initiated eviction proceedings against the Plaintis. 34. The Plaintis state that during one such attempt, ocers from Kwale Police Station arrested and charged over fty squatters, among them the Plaintis and their family members. 35. The Plaintis argue that these actions are illegal and violate their proprietary rights acquired through decades of occupation, development, and reliance on ocial assurances. 36. Despite issuing a demand letter and notice of intention to sue, the Defendants have allegedly remained adamant in their eorts to evict the Plaintis. 37. The Plaintis assert that there is no other pending suit between the parties over the same subject matter and that the value of the land falls within the jurisdiction of this Court. 38. Reliefs Sought were that the Plaintis therefore seek judgment against the Defendants jointly and severally for the following:a. A declaration that the lease issued on 6th December 2019 over Land Reference Number 4659 (Original Number 3855/19) in favour of the 1st to 7th Defendants is unlawful, null, and void. b. A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, or servants from evicting or in any way interfering with the Plaintis’ occupation and use of the Suit Property. c. Costs of the suit together with interest at such rate and period as the Court may deem just. d. Any other or further relief that the Honourable Court may consider appropriate in the circumstances. C. Kwale ELC CASE NO. 4 OF 2024 Abdulkadir Rahimkhan & Jabeen Manan – Versus - County Government Of Kwale, Land Registrar Mombasa, National Land Commission, Director Of Surveys, Director Of Physical Planning & County Executive Committee Member, Lands Natural Resources And Urban Planning, County Government Of Kwale. 39. From the led pleadings, the suit was led in the year 2017 through a Plaint dated 19th April 2017. The Plaintis are siblings of sound mind residing in Mombasa County and are represented in this suit by Oluga & Company Advocates. 40. The 1st Defendant is the County Government of Kwale, established under the provision of Article 176 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010, and mandated to manage county aairs including land administration. 41. The 2nd Defendant is the Land Registrar, Mombasa, appointed under Section 12 of the Land Registration Act, 2012, and charged with maintaining land records and issuing titles. 42. The 3rd Defendant is the National Land Commission, a constitutional commission established under Article 67 of the Constitution and mandated to manage public land on behalf of the national and county governments. 43. The 4th Defendant is the Director of Surveys, appointed under the provision of Section 3 of the Survey Act, Cap. 299, responsible for survey and mapping functions. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18226/eng@2025-11-13 6

page 6 of 14

44. The 5th Defendant is the Director of Physical Planning, appointed under the provision of Section 4 of the Physical Planning Act, No. 6 of 1996, charged with physical planning approvals and regulation of land use. 45. The 6th Defendant is the County Executive Committee Member (CECM) for Lands, Natural Resources, and Urban Planning in Kwale County. 46. The Plaintis were leasehold title holders of Land Reference No. 4659 (Original No. 3855/19), measuring 1020.2 acres, property inherited from their late father. 47. The Plaintis’ family has occupied the suit property for several generations, engaging in large-scale agricultural activities. The lease over the suit property expired on 1st January 2013. 48. On 31st August 2010, prior to expiry, the Plaintis applied to the defunct County Council of Kwale for renewal of the lease. 49. On 24th October 2012, the Town Planning Committee recommended renewal of the lease subject to the following conditions: i. 400 acres to be set aside for squatters; ii. 20 acres to be reserved for water intake; and iii. 600 acres to be retained by the Plaintis. 50. Unaware that the approval had already been granted, the Plaintis re - applied on 30th November 2012, and the application was formally received on 21st December 2012. 51. The County Council of Kwale subsequently approved the renewal on 13th December 2012 and communicated its decision through a letter dated 19th February 2013. 52. The renewal was further endorsed by the District Physical Planning Ocer, the District Lands Ocer, and the District Surveyor. 53. Following the year 2013 General Elections, the County Government of Kwale succeeded the defunct County Council and assumed its functions and obligations. Despite the approvals and recommendations, the Defendants failed and/or refused to issue a Certicate of title in favour of the Plaintis. 54. The 1st Defendant contended that upon expiry, the suit property reverted to it as public land. The Plaintis, however, continued with their agricultural activities, including the cultivation of mangoes, coconuts, oranges, and cashew nuts, as well as livestock farming. The Plaintis’ family established permanent residences and workers’ quarters on the suit property, signifying continuous possession. The Plaintis remained in peaceful occupation of the property after the expiry of the lease. The 1st Defendant subsequently urged the 3rd Defendant (NLC) to reclaim the land for purposes of public allocation. Several meetings were convened with local residents, wherein it was announced that the land was now available for redistribution. 55. During the said period, local residents—allegedly mobilized by the 1st Defendant’s ocers—invaded the property and destroyed the Plaintis’ crops. The 1st Defendant, in conjunction with police ocers, is said to have frustrated and harassed the Plaintis’ occupation of the land. The Plaintis allege that the 1st Defendant disregarded the recommendations and approvals made by its predecessor, the County Council of Kwale. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18226/eng@2025-11-13 7

page 7 of 14

56. They further assert that the land could not revert to the County Government as they held pre-emptive rights and were still in active possession. The Defendants had provided no legal justication for refusing to renew the lease. The Plaintis maintain that their application for renewal was made and approved before the expiry date, hence the Defendants are legally obligated to renew the lease and issue a new title. 57. The Plaintis contend that the refusal to renew violates their legitimate expectation and their constitutional right to property under Article 40 of the Constitution. They further argue that the 1st Defendant is estopped from denying the renewal due to the Plaintis’ continued occupation and the prior approvals granted. No eviction took place immediately after lease expiry; instead, the issue arose four years later, which the Plaintis allege was politically motivated. 58. The Plaintis assert that through their continued occupation, investment, and use, the lease was constructively renewed. Due to threats, harassment, and destruction of crops, the Plaintis have suered loss and damage to their agricultural enterprise. 59. The Plaintis further fault the National Land Commission (3rd Defendant) for failing to act on the approved renewal request despite being constitutionally mandated to oversee lease renewals. 60. They also accuse the Director of Surveys (4th Defendant) and Director of Physical Planning (5th Defendant) of failing to process the renewal despite district-level endorsements conrming its approval. 61. A declaration that the refusal by the Defendants to renew the lease violates the Plaintis’ constitutional right to property and their pre-emptive right to allocation. A declaration that the leasehold title over LR No. 4659 (Original No. 3855/19) has not reverted to the County Government of Kwale. 62. A mandatory injunction compelling the Defendants to implement the recommendations of the former County Council of Kwale and renew the lease in favour of the Plaintis. 63. A declaration arming the Plaintis’ right to occupy, use, cultivate, sublet, charge, or transfer the suit property. 64. A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from surveying, subdividing, planning, or developing the suit property. 65. A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from harassing, evicting, or otherwise interfering with the Plaintis’ occupation and use of the land. 66. A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from inciting residents or police against the Plaintis. 67. An order directing the Ocer Commanding Station (OCS), Kwale, to enforce peace and ensure compliance with any court orders issued. 68. General damages for the destruction, harassment, and economic loss suered by the Plaintis. 69. Costs of the suit and interest thereon. 70. Any other or further relief that this Honourable Court may deem t, just, and equitable to grant. D. Kwale ELC CASE NO. E004 OF 2022. FRed Abuga Onsongo And Jimmy Sausi & Fatuma Mohamed Haji – Versus - Jabeen Mariam Khan, Narriman Khan And 7 Others. 71. From the led pleadings, the suit was led in the year 2022 through a Plaint dated 26th February 2022. The 1st Plainti, Fred Abuga Onsong’o, is an adult of sound mind residing and working in Nairobi. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18226/eng@2025-11-13 8

page 8 of 14

The 2nd Plainti, Jimmy Sausi, also resides in Nairobi, while the 3rd Plainti, Fatuma Mohamed Haji, resides in Mombasa. All Plaintis are represented by Ochoki & Ochoki Associates Advocates. 72. The Defendants, being the 1st to 9th were the registered proprietors of Land Reference No. 4659, CR 74204 (Original No. 8696) situated in Kwale County, held as tenants in common, each with distinct shares. 73. The lease for the suit property commenced on 6th July 1936 and was due to expire on 1st January 2013, covering approximately 1020.28 acres. 74. Upon expiry of the lease, the Defendants made several attempts to have the lease renewed but faced various administrative challenges and incurred substantial nancial costs without success. 75. The 1st Plainti became aware of the Defendants’ predicament and their willingness to allocate portions of the suit property to any party who could successfully assist in renewing the lease. 76. Acting on this information, the 1st Plainti, together with a colleague identied as Mr. Keitany, approached the other Plaintis and jointly conducted due diligence at Ardhi House, the Survey of Kenya, Kwale County oces, and Mombasa Lands Oce, conrming that the lease had indeed expired. 77. On 14th July 2019, a meeting was convened at the suit property between the Plaintis and Mr. Roy Khan, a relative and representative of the Defendants. It was agreed that a formal agreement would be executed to safeguard the Plaintis’ interests. 78. Subsequently, on 11th November 2019, a formal written agreement was executed between the Plaintis and the Defendants, including representatives of the estates of deceased proprietors. Each party retained an executed copy of the agreement. 79. Following the execution of the agreement, the Plaintis, through their own nancial resources and legal counsel, initiated and facilitated the lease renewal process on behalf of all parties. 80. The process culminated on 11th December 2019, when a renewed Certicate of Title and deed plan were successfully issued and later handed over to the Defendants at Castle Hotel, Mombasa, through the Plaintis’ Advocates. 81. The executed agreement expressly stipulated the acreage and specic shares that each Plainti would receive upon the successful renewal of the lease. 82. Despite several requests from the Plaintis, the Defendants failed and/or refused to convene an on-site meeting to allocate the agreed portions, thereby frustrating the implementation of the agreement. 83. Internal disagreements subsequently arose among the Defendants, notably between Basil G. Khan and William Khan, who allegedly took possession of the original Title Deed and began scouting for potential buyers without the consent or knowledge of the other parties. 84. These internal disputes created tension and uncertainty, exposing the suit property to encroachment by neighbouring residents claiming squatter rights, thereby threatening the Plaintis’ interests. When the Plaintis visited the land on 11th November 2019, under the guidance of Roy Khan, they conrmed that no squatters or trespassers were occupying the property at that time. 85. The Plaintis now seek the surrender of the renewed Certicate of Title to enable the subdivision of the property in accordance with the executed agreement of 11th November 2019. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18226/eng@2025-11-13 9

page 9 of 14

86. The Plaintis contend that the said agreement was voluntarily executed without any form of coercion, undue inuence, or misrepresentation, and that the Defendants’ subsequent actions amount to breach of contract and fraudulent conduct. Misrepresenting to the 8th Defendant that the title was required at the Lands Oce for ocial use; Falsely claiming that the renewed title contained material errors; Visiting the property with prospective purchasers without consent; 87. Undertaking secret sub - division exercises and impersonating ownership; and 88. Colluding with one Mohamed Sheikh, a nancier, in attempts to sell the land. 89. The Plaintis issued a demand letter and a notice of intention to sue, but the Defendants failed or neglected to respond to the same. 90. There is no evidence of any other pending suit or previous proceedings between the Plaintis and Defendants involving the same subject matter. 91. The cause of action, arising from the agreement and subsequent breach, falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court at Kwale. 92. The Plainti sought for the following reliefs; a. A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their agents, servants, or assigns from selling, transferring, or negotiating any part of LR No. 4659, CR 74204, until the Plaintis receive their respective individual plots. b. An order compelling the 3rd Defendant to produce and surrender the original renewed Certicate of Title to the Plaintis. c. An order authorizing the Plaintis to demarcate and carve out their respective plots from LR No. 4659, CR 74204, without interference by the Defendants. d. A declaration that the Plaintis are entitled to their respective portions of land as per the agreement dated 11th November 2019. e. An order authorizing the Deputy Registrar of the Environment and Land Court to execute the necessary transfer documents on behalf of the Defendants should they fail to comply with court directions. f. An order directing the Mombasa Land Registrar to register the said transfers and issue individual titles to the Plaintis accordingly. g. Costs of the suit and any other relief the Honourable Court may deem just and equitable to grant. IV. Analysis And Determination 93. Having considered all the pleadings in both suits, the responses and the envision of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and the relevant provisions of law, I do frame the following issue for consideration. a. Whether ELCC 168 of 2021, ELC 141 of 2021, ELCLC 4 of 2024 and ELCC E004 of 2022 should be consolidated? https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18226/eng@2025-11-13 10

page 10 of 14

Whether ELCC 168 of 2021, ELC 141 of 2021, ELCLC 4 of 2024 and ELCC E004 of 2022 should be consolidated 94. The law governing the consolidation of les is founded under Section 80 (h) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and Order 11 Rule3 (I) (h) of the Civil Procedure Rules states as follows: 3. (1) 95. 96. With a view to furthering expeditious disposal of cases and case management the court shall within thirty days after the close of pleadings convene a Case Conference in which it shall— (a) ------- (h) Consider consolidation of suits; The Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 mandates courts are to consider consolidations of suit. In so doing, courts to be guided by the following three (3) legal parameters. These are: a) Do the same question of law or fact arise in both cases? b) Do the rights or reliefs claimed in the two cases or more arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions? c) Will any party be disadvantaged or prejudiced or will consolidation confer undue advantage to the other party? The principles to consider while consolidating suits were amply set out in the case of:- “Nairobi ELC Suit No. 1000 of 2012 Joseph Okoyo – Versus - Edwin Dickson Wasunna (2014) eKLR”, which cited with approval Mombasa “HCCC No. 992 of 1994 Nyati Security Guards and Services – Versus Municipal Council of Mombasa” wherein the factors were enumerated as follows:“ The situations in which consolidation can be ordered include where there are two or more suits or matters pending in the same court where: - 97. (a) Some common question of law or fact arises in both or all of them; or (b) The rights or relief claimed in them are in respect of, or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions, or (c) For some other reason it is desirable to make an order for consolidating them.” In the case of:- “Law Society of Kenya – Versus – The Centre for Human Rights & Democracy, Supreme Court of Kenya Petition No. 14 of 2013 the SOK” held that: “ The essence of consolidation is to facilitate the ecient and expeditious disposal of disputes and to provide a framework for a fair and impartial dispensation of justice to the parties. Consolidation was never meant to confer any undue advantage upon the party that seeks it, nor was it intended to occasion any disadvantage towards the party that opposes it” 98. While Maraga J, as he then was, held in “Municipal Council of Mombasa – Versus - Municipal Council of Mombasa [2004] eKLR” that: “ Consolidation is a process by which two or more suits or matters are by order of court combined or united and treated as one suit or matter. The main purpose of consolidation https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18226/eng@2025-11-13 11

page 11 of 14

is to save costs, time and eort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. The situations in which consolidation can be ordered include where there are two or more suits or matters pending in the same court where: 1. some common question of law or fact arises in both or all of them; or 2. the rights or relief claimed in them are in respect of, or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions, or 3. for some other reason it is desirable to make an order for consolidating them”. 99. Applying the above principles to the present circumstances, this Court observes that all four suits — “ELCC 168 of 2021, ELC 141 of 2021, ELCC 4 of 2024 and ELCC E004 of 2022” — relate to the same parcel of land, namely Land Reference No. 4659 (Original Number 3855/19) located in Kwale County. 100. The pleadings in each of the four matters raise common questions of law and fact, including: a. Ownership and renewal of leasehold interest over the suit property; b. The validity and legality of the lease renewal process; c. The role and actions of the County Government of Kwale, the National Land Commission, and the Land Registrar, Mombasa; d. Allegations of fraud, unlawful eviction, and violation of proprietary rights; and e. Competing claims between registered proprietors, estates, alleged purchasers, and occupants. 101. Guided by the reasoning in “Law Society of Kenya – Versus -Centre for Human Rights & Democracy (supra) and Joseph Okoyo v. Edwin Dickson Wasunna (Supra)”, this Court nds that the consolidation of these suits will serve the ends of justice by enabling one coherent and comprehensive determination on ownership and occupation rights over Land Reference No. 4659 (Original Number 3855/19). 102. The Court thus holds that both suits raise common questions of law and fact, arise from the same transaction concerning ownership and possession of the Suit Property, and involve overlapping parties. Consolidation will ensure consistency, avoid duplication, and facilitate expeditious resolution without prejudice to any party. 103. The rights and reliefs sought in all the suits are interrelated and arise from the same series of transactions — namely, the expiry of the original lease, the renewal process, subsequent issuance of title, and subsequent occupation and use of the suit land. 104. Furthermore, the parties in the four matters overlap signicantly. Several individuals and estates appear across multiple suits, and their interests are directly or indirectly aected by the outcome of each proceeding. 105. It is therefore apparent that proceeding with the suits separately would not only risk inconsistent ndings but would also waste judicial time and resources, contrary to the principles of the overriding objective enshrined under Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, which call for the just, expeditious, and cost-eective determination of disputes. 106. The Court is also guided by the principle that consolidation should not cause prejudice or confer an undue advantage on any party. Having reviewed the pleadings and submissions, the Court nds no https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18226/eng@2025-11-13 12

page 12 of 14

evidence that any party would be unfairly disadvantaged by consolidation. On the contrary, all parties stand to benet from a coherent, consistent, and comprehensive determination of the central issues in dispute. 107. The consolidation of the four suits will thus promote judicial economy, avoid duplication of proceedings, and ensure that the rights of all parties are adjudicated within a single, coordinated framework. 108. Consequently, and for the reasons stated above, the Court nds and holds that ELCC 168 of 2021, ELC 141 of 2021, ELCC 4 of 2024 and ELCC E004 of 2022 meet the legal threshold for consolidation. 109. The Court has also noted that the suits are at comparable procedural stages, and consolidation will not occasion any delay or prejudice. On the contrary, it will save time, judicial resources, and costs, in line with Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act on the overriding objective. V. Conclusion & Directions 110. Ultimately, the upshot of this in-depth and elaborate analysis and based on the inherent powers vested in me under the provisions of Sections 1, 1A, 3, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 3 of Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011, Section 101 of the Land Registration No. 3 of 2012, Sections 128 and 150 of the Land Act, No. 6 of 2012, I proceed to make the following orders/directions: a. THAT the four suits, ELCC 168 of 2021, ELC 141 of 2021, ELCC 4 of 2024 and ELCC E004 of 2022, be and are hereby consolidated as they relate to the same subject matter, Land Reference No. 4659 (Original Number 3855/19); b. THAT Kwale ELCC 168 of 2021 - (“Jabeen Manan & Abdulkadir Ahmedkhan – Versus Estate of Alikhan Rahimkhan & Others”) be the lead le where all the lings of pleadings will be done and the proceedings be recorded from henceforth. c. THAT the Plaintis in ELCC 141 of 2021 and ELCC E004 of 2022 will be treated as Defendants in relation to 168 of 2021 and their Plaints will be a defence to ELCC 168 of 2021 unless they deem it necessary to le a Statement of Defence together with a counterclaim. While the Plaintis in ELCLC No. 4 of 2024 will still remain as Plainti in relation to ELCC No. 168 of 2021. d. THAT Plainti granted 21 days leave to le response to the Defence and Defence to the Counter – Claim. e. THAT for eciency sake all parties to prepare and exchange a trial bundle documents at least in the next 30 days from this day. f. THAT in the meantime parties are encouraged to explore an out of Court negotiation with a view of attaining a settlement as it is in tandem with the Judiciary AJS & STAJ policy all anchored under the provision of Article 159 (2) ( c ) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010; Sections 20 ( 1 ) & ( 2 ) of the Environment & Land Act, No. 19 of 2011. g. THAT for expediency’s sake the matter to be mention on 16th February, 2026 for taking elaborate and further directions with regard to the disposal of the matter and xing of a hearing date which should be at least within the next 180 days from this date hereof – hearing on 22nd April, 2026. h. THAT an order be and is hereby made directing the Land Registrar, Kwale or Mombasa to register an inhibition against Land Reference No. 4659 (Original Number 3855/19) pending https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18226/eng@2025-11-13 13

page 13 of 14

the hearing and nal determination of the consolidated suit in order to preserve the said suit properties thereof. It is so ordered accordingly. DIRECTIONS DELIVERED THROUGH THE MICRO – SOFT TEAMS VIRTUAL MEANS SIGNED & DATED AT KWALE THIS …………13TH ……... DAY OF ………...NOVEMBER ………2025 …………………………………… HON. MR. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT KWALE Directions delivered in the presence of: a. Mr. Daniel Disii, the Court Assistant. b. Mr. Matende Advocate for the Jabeen. c. Mr. Sausi Advocate for the Plainti in ELCC E004 of 2022 d. Mr. Kilumo Advocate holding brief for Mr. Bwire Advocate for Plainti in ELCC 141 of 2021. e. Mr. Amakobe Advocate for the 1st and 6th Defendants in ELCLC 4 of 2024 and 10th Defendants in ELCC 141 of 2021 f. M/s Kiti Advocate for the 5th Defendant in ELCC 168 of 2021. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/18226/eng@2025-11-13 14

page 14 of 14