Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Gichunge M'kaunganyi Aithula v Fredrick Ntongai M'erimba

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT MERU MISC. APPLICATION NO. 76 OF 2015 GICHUNGE M'KAUNGANYI AITHULA........................................APPLICANT VERSUS FREDRICK NTONGAI M'ERIMBA.............................................RESPONDENT RULING This application is filed under Section 18 of the Civil Procedure Act. It seeks orders: 1. THAT by consent of the Advocates for the Applicant and the Respondent, Prayer No. 2 of the Notice of Motion dated 28.10.2015 be allowed. 2. THAT the running file, upon consolidation, be Meru CMCC NO.255 of 2013. 3. THAT costs of the application be in the cause. The application is supported by the Applicant Gichunge Aithula and has the following grounds; a) That the subject matters in both suits are land Reg. No. Njia/Burieruri/5118 and 5119 which are sub-divisions of land Reg. No. Njia/Burieruri/5100. b) That the parties and issues of law to be considered are the same in both suits. c) The transfer of Maua CMCC No. 220 of 2015 to the Chief Magistrate's Court at Meru and consolidation with Meru C.M.C.C. No 255 of 2013 shall prevent a multiplication of suits involving the same parties and over similar issues. On 5th November 2015, the parties tendered a consent duly signed by their advocates and asked the Court to adopt the consent as its order. The consent dated 4th November, 2015 is adopted as an order of this court. It is so ordered. Delivered in open Court at Meru this 5th day of November, 2015 in the presence of:Cc. Daniel/Lilian Muthamia h/b Kaimenyi for the Applicant Mririgi Kaburu for Respondent P. M. NJOROGE JUDGE

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.