Civil Division v The Sentry Organisation

b) That this court be pleased to issue directions on how the three consolidated suits will proceed. 2. The motion is predicated upon provisions of Order 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules and Sections 1A, 1B, 15 and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act and upon the supporting affidavit sworn on 14/11/2024 by Sanjay Mody counsel and Corporate Secretary for the Defendant/Applicant. 3. In opposition to the motion, the Plaintiff/Respondent filed a Replying Affidavit sworn by Robert Kinyanjui an advocate for the Plaintiff on 19/1/2/2024. 4. The parties filed submissions in support of their rival positions in respect of the application with each party stating issues that they deemed as necessary for court’s determination. 5. The Applicant/Defendant issues are as here below:1) Whether the cases to be consolidated have similar questions of law and fact arising from the same course of action 2) Whether consolidation will confer any undue advantage or prejudice to either of the parties. 6. On the Plaintiff/Respondent’s part, three issues were stated as follows:-

page 2 of 6

1) Whether the defendant/Applicant has demonstrated all conditions necessary to warrant consolidation of the suits. 2) Whether consolidation will prejudice the Plaintiff/Respondent. 7. In the course of proceedings before me, an issue of Preliminary Objection dated 3/07/2024 raised by the Defendant/Applicant herein, in E025/2024 was brought to fore, wherein the Plaintiff’s capacity and or locus standi to file the suit was raised; as well as jurisdictional issue of this court to entertain the suit, on grounds that the cause of action took place in South Sudan, a foreign country and the Defendant being a foreign body. A perusal of the court record reviewed that the issue of jurisdiction by Kenyan courts in respect of the cases was determined positively by the court by an order issued by the Hon. Ongeri J. 8. The Court Order as extracted and issued on 12/06/2024 states; and I quote verbatim: “....that the Application dated 23/02/2024 is allowed as prayed to wit; a) That leave be and is hereby granted to serve summons and any other process in this suit upon the defendant, the Sentry Organization through any Internationally licenced courier service provider to the said Defendants las known current and registered

page 3 of 6

postal address and office at 1629 K Street NW, Suite 300, Washington DC 2006 in the United States of America and through the said Defendants email address as info@thesentry.org and the Defendant do enter appearance in this suit within a period of 15 days from the date of service of the order hereof through the process hereof. b) That costs of the application be in the cause. 9. The above is the statutory procedure as provided under Order 5 Rule 21 (Service of court process out of Kenya) as amended in 2020. In compliance with the court order, the Defendant entered appearance by a Memorandum of Appearance dated 14/06/2024 from which this court assumed jurisdiction. To that extent therefore, the Preliminary Objection was thus determined and must be dismissed; rendering the proceedings before this court competent. 10. That said, further perusal of court proceedings show that the motion under review dated 14/11/2024 is not challenged by the Respondent. This is so because on 10/06/2025 the parties advocates recorded a verbal consent(but recorded by the court) to the effect that:“...Mr Mwangi Advocate: Today we have entered a consent on hearing of the suits. Our clients are all

page 4 of 6

Kenyans. The uits should be heard in Kenyan Courts…. Mr. Mutemi for Defendant: …all matters are now before the High Court. The court has jurisdiction though not the most appropriate.” 11. In effect, the parties had agreed to the court's jurisdiction as well as the consolidation of all the suits in E025/2024 and E274/2024. 12. Additionally, to bring the above to fore, on the same date, to wit, 10/06/2025, another consent by the parties Advocates was recorded that: “...all the cases to be heard together1) On liability:Plaintiffs to choose which plaintiffs to testify to prove liability against the Defendant; 2) On quantum:Each of the Plaintiffs to testify to their extent of injury to their reputation. 13. By the above, it is evident that the matter of objection raised by the Defendant on lack of jurisdiction of this court to entertain the suit was duly determined, affirming that this court has jurisdiction, upon which directions on hearing of the suit, to wit, pretrial directions under Order 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules were taken.

page 5 of 6

14. What is the effect of the above in respect to the motion dated 14/11/2024? Without a doubt, prayers (c) & (d) thereof is allowed; the suits have all been consolidated for hearing and pretrial directions issued by orders of 10/06/2025. 15. Arising from the above consents, the only issue left is for the parties to proceed to take a hearing date of the consolidated suits; E025/2024 being the lead file. 16. The parties Advocates are directed to attend court to take further directions and or a hearing date before the incoming Judge on a date as may be allocated. Costs of the motion shall be in the cause. It is so ordered. Delivered Dated and Signed at Nairobi this 21st Day of May 2026. ………………………. JANET MULWA. JUDGE

page 6 of 6