Titus Kiragu, hereafter referred to as the applicant has come to court in this matter seeking orders that this court be pleased to issue an order of consolidation of this suit with Nakuru High Court Civil Case No. 297 of 2005 between Titus Kiragu and the Attorney General. That the current suit be treated as the lead file. Moreover, that the parties be allowed to file additional documents. The application is based on grounds that the issues in both cases are similar as they both revolve around the allotment of LR No. 9514/6 situated at East of Nakuru Municipality measuring 120 acres, and 332 acres at Lanet Beef Research Station to the Defendant/Applicant, and legality of the said allotment and both suits raise common questions of law and fact as the main question in both suits is whether the Defendant was legally allotted L.R No. 9514/6 measuring 120 acres and whether the allotment was equivalent to the land that he had surrendered at Kampi ya Moto, being L.R No. 10978/8 measuring 100 acres. The dispute in both cases stems from the same set of transactions.
Consolidating the two suits will facilitate efficient and expeditious disposal of the issues between the parties in both suits and provide a framework for a fair and final dispensation of justice to the parties. Through consolidation, costs, time and other resources will be saved as the evidence to be adduced in both cases is largely the same. The reliefs sought in both cases are largely the same. The parties in both cases are interrelated, mostly the same and/or litigate under the same title. The applicant contends that it is in the interest of justice to allow the consolidation of the current suit with HC Civil Case No. 297 of 2005 Titus Kiragu versus The Hon. Attorney General to allow expeditious disposal of both suits.
The KALRO, herewith referred to as the respondent filed grounds dated 2nd July 2024 and the replying affidavit of the company secretary stating that the HC Civil Case No. 297 of 2005 Titus Kiragu versus The Hon. Attorney General is eighteen years old in the court and that the applicant intends to delay the hearing of this case by virtue of this application. Moreover, that the issues in the two suits are different.
I have considered the application and grounds of opposition and do find that both suits revolve on the same parcel of land that was Public land before alleged acquisition. The main issue in both suits is whether the parcel of land was legally acquired. The parties are basically the same thus Titus Kiragu against KALRO which is a state Corporation and the Attorney General who is the principal government advisor aand represents the Government in such matters.
This court finds that allowing the two suits to proceed parallel might lead to the conflicting decisions that might prejudice the parties and embarrass the court. This court does not agree with the respondent that the issues are different because even the alleged excess Public Land excised is within the suit property LR 9514/6 situated at East of Nakuru Municipality measuring 120 acres. Ultimately the application is allowed and that the two suits be consolidated and this file to be the lead file. The Nakuru H.C case No.297 of 2005 to be transferred to this court and the plaint therein to be treated as counter claim. The Defence by the Attorney General to be treated as defence to counter claim. The Attorney General shall be a defendant in the counter claim. Parties to be allowed to file further list of documents and witness and statements. Cost in the cause. The two files to be mentioned on 20th November 2024.
Consolidating the two suits will facilitate efficient and expeditious disposal of the issues between the parties in both suits and provide a framework for a fair and final dispensation of justice to the parties. Through consolidation, costs, time and other resources will be saved as the evidence to be adduced in both cases is largely the same. The reliefs sought in both cases are largely the same. The parties in both cases are interrelated, mostly the same and/or litigate under the same title. The applicant contends that it is in the interest of justice to allow the consolidation of the current suit with HC Civil Case No. 297 of 2005 Titus Kiragu versus The Hon. Attorney General to allow expeditious disposal of both suits.
The KALRO, herewith referred to as the respondent filed grounds dated 2nd July 2024 and the replying affidavit of the company secretary stating that the HC Civil Case No. 297 of 2005 Titus Kiragu versus The Hon. Attorney General is eighteen years old in the court and that the applicant intends to delay the hearing of this case by virtue of this application. Moreover, that the issues in the two suits are different.
I have considered the application and grounds of opposition and do find that both suits revolve on the same parcel of land that was Public land before alleged acquisition. The main issue in both suits is whether the parcel of land was legally acquired. The parties are basically the same thus Titus Kiragu against KALRO which is a state Corporation and the Attorney General who is the principal government advisor aand represents the Government in such matters.
This court finds that allowing the two suits to proceed parallel might lead to the conflicting decisions that might prejudice the parties and embarrass the court. This court does not agree with the respondent that the issues are different because even the alleged excess Public Land excised is within the suit property LR 9514/6 situated at East of Nakuru Municipality measuring 120 acres. Ultimately the application is allowed and that the two suits be consolidated and this file to be the lead file. The Nakuru H.C case No.297 of 2005 to be transferred to this court and the plaint therein to be treated as counter claim. The Defence by the Attorney General to be treated as defence to counter claim. The Attorney General shall be a defendant in the counter claim. Parties to be allowed to file further list of documents and witness and statements. Cost in the cause. The two files to be mentioned on 20th November 2024.