Mayieka & 104 others v Urithi Housing Co-operative Society Limited & another [2024] KECPT 928 (KLR)

Mayieka & 104 others v Urithi Housing Co-operative Society Limited & another (Tribunal Case 55 of 2021) [2024] KECPT 928 (KLR) (16 May 2024) (Ruling)

Neutral citation: [2024] KECPT 928 (KLR)

Republic of Kenya

In the Cooperative Tribunal

Tribunal Case 55 of 2021

Janet Mwatsama, Vice Chair, B Sawe & P. Gichuki, Members

May 16, 2024

Between

Mary Kemunto Mayieka & 104 others

Claimant

and

Urithi Housing Co-operative Society Limited

1st Respondent

Samuel Ngundo Maina

2nd Respondent

Ruling

1. It cannot be disputed that even on its own motion courts have discretion and power to consolidate matters or causes of action in appropriate cases.

2. Appropriate cases in this context are cases where the questions of law and fact and the reliefs sought are the same.

3. The main purpose of consolidation is to save on costs for all parties and also save on the limited judicial time. In this particular case it appears to the Tribunal that there are common questions of law and fact and the reliefs being sought.The cause of action arose from the same transaction or series of transaction. Each of the 104 Claimant’s cause of action arose from the sale agreement in respect to an apartment(s) erected by the 1st Respondent on the same parcel of land being Mavoko Town Block 3/73993. It is further important to note the apartment cost was sold at the same price of Kshs. 1. 600,000/=, The only point of variance is the number of apartments bought by the Claimants.

4. The overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21, Article 151 of the Constitution mandates this Tribunal to dispense justice without undue delay and or undue regard to technicalities.Given that the Respondents have not indicated specifically the prejudice they are likely to suffer if at all, if at some Claimants represent others.

5. There is no law that stops consolidation or parties representing other parties. All along the matter has come up severally for pre-trial directions and Claimants have always had specific Claimants to ventilate their cases.At no given point did the Respondent raise the issue of all Claimants coming to give evidence. We take great exception to the Application being made by the Respondent’s Advocate indeed too late in the day and we find is not merited.

6. As such we order for the matter to proceed for hearing of the Claimant’s one witness on behalf of all other Claimants as the causes of action of the other 103 Claimants do not differ with the 2nd Claimant’s on matters of law and fact.

7. We further note the matter has come up for hearing severally and Respondent has always sought for an adjournment.It is our guided view that in the interest of justice and for expediency of the matter herein the case is to proceed with 2nd Claimant to its close.

RULING SIGNED, DATED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT NAIROBI THIS 16TH DAY OF MAY, 2024. Hon. J. Mwatsama Deputy Chairperson Signed 16. 5.2024Hon. Beatrice Sawe Member Signed 16. 5.2024Hon. Philip Gichuki Member Signed 16. 5.2024Tribunal Clerk JonahGachie advocate for the ClaimantMwangi advocate for the Respondent together with Echom Advocate.Hon. J. Mwatsama Deputy Chairperson Signed 16. 5.2024