Ole Samuria & 6 others v Kima & 16 others (Environment and Land Case E024 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4909 (KLR)

LEPARAN KARI…………….……….………….…………..13TH DEFENDANT/APPLICANT EMMILY ENE DANIEL KARRI……………………………..14TH DEFENDANT/APPLICANT GEORGE OLE KIMA……………………….……………..15TH DEFENDANT/APPLICANT NGATAT KAPUNE……………………….…………….…..16TH DEFENDANT/APPLICANT SAMSON LEKOKWA KARRI………………………….…..17TH DEFENDANT/APPLICANT RULING 1. Coming up for determination is the Notice of Motion application dated 07.05.2026 which seeks consolidation of Kilgoris ELC 24 of 2025 and ELC E001 of 2026. 2. Which application is grounded on grounds interalia, (I) that the suit property in ELC E001/2026 is Transmara/Sikawa/144 while the suit properties in ELC 24 of 2025 are Transmara/Sikawa/829, Transmara/Sikawa/831, Transmara/Sikawa/830, Transmara/Sikawa/833, Transmara/Sikawa/827 and Transmara/Sikawa/826, all of which are subdivisions of Transmara/Sikawa/144. (II) Further that the plaintiffs in Kilgoris ELC No. 24/2025 are equally named as Defendants in ELC No. E001/2021. (III) That if the matters were to proceed separately, the court will determine the same issues in two cases and hence it will save the court’s time and avert the possibility of reaching different determination on same subject matter. 3. Upon consideration of the grounds above which were restated in the oral submissions of Mr. Kiprotich learned counsel for the Applicant, who submitted further that the parties can retain their identities and that ELC E001/2021 be the lead file and the court renders a consolidated determination and that the only issue in the Replying affidavit is that ELC E001/2021 has taken long time to determine. He urged the court to allow the application. Page 2|5

page 2 of 5

4. Upon consideration of the Replying affidavit, together with the submissions of Ms. Ochieng learned counsel for the plaintiff in E001/2021; who reiterated the depositions in her submissions, to wit, that the plaintiff in E001/2021 will be greatly prejudice as the two suits raise different issues, and that the essence of consolidation would be defeated as the stage at which in E024/2025 is not known and that the Reliefs sought are different, whereas in E001/2021 seeks to challenge power of Transfer and illegalities and fraudulent actions conducted pursuant to an adjudication process of Transmara/Sikawa/144 and Transmara/Sikawa/616, in E024/2025, seeks to challenge ownership and enforce rights against a third party Plaintiff in E024/2025 have no claim against the land adjudication office, and that consolidation will prolong the case. 5. The other counsels appearing in the matter, Mr. Onyango, Ms. Mireri, Mr. Okwoyo and Mr. Kembe were all not opposed to the application. 6. Before framing the issues for determination, the court makes not of the following undisputed facts; (i) That the suit property in ELC E001/2021 is Transmara/Sikawa/144 while the suit properties in ELC No. E024/2025 is Transmara/Sikawa/829, Transmara/Sikawa/830, Transmara/Sikawa/831, Transmara/Sikawa/833, Transmara/Sikawa/826 and Transmara/Sikawa/827 (all which are subdivisions of Transmara/Sikawa/144. (ii) That the existence of the subdivisions is an issue in ELC E024/2025 while the existence of the mother title is in issue in ELC E001/2021. Issues for Determination 7. Having analysed the Application and affidavits, as well as the submissions and considered the law the court framed the issue for determination as follows; (i) Whether or not the application is merited. (ii) What orders ought to issue. Page 3|5

page 3 of 5

(iii) Who bears the costs of the application. Analysis and Determination 8. The gist of the case in ELC E001/2021, is the acquisition of the Transmara/Sikawa/144 through the adjudication process. While in ELC E024/2025, the main issue is the existence of the subdivisions of Transmara/Sikawa/144, to wit Transmara/Sikawa/830, Transmara/Sikawa/831, Transmara/Sikawa/833, Transmara/Sikawa/826; Transmara/Sikawa/829, Transmara/Sikawa/827 all which and emanate from Transmara/Sikawa/144. 9. It follows therefrom that the two cases are interrelated as they both seek to determine firstly the validity and acquisition of Transmara/Sikawa/144, and thereafter the validity of the subsequent subdivisions and transfers to third parties. 10. Contrary to the Respondents position that the issues are different, the court finds that the issues in both cases are intertwined are related. 11. The plaintiff in E024/2025 and E001/2021 who are necessary for determination of the questions herein. 12. In view of the above the court thus finds that the Application herein, is merited as it meets the criteria of consolidation of suits as was stated in Law Society of Kenya Vs. Centre for Human Rights and Democracy and 12 Others where Supreme Court held as follows “The essence of consolidation of suits is to facilitate the efficient 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…” 13. It would save the court’s time, and advance the expeditious hearing and disposal of the cases if the two files are consolidated for Page 4|5

page 4 of 5

hearing and determination, more so in view that ELC e001/2021 is to start de novo after the judgment therein was set aside by consent of the parties. 14. In this regard the court allows the application for consolidation and E001/2021 shall be the lead file, and the parties be joinder in the lead file. 15. Orders accordingly. Dated at Kilgoris this 29th day of July, 2026 Hon. M.N. Mwanyale Judge In the presence of CA – Sylvia/Clara Mr. Mwita and Mr. Nyambati for the Defendants N/A for Mr. Kiprotich Page 5|5

page 5 of 5