Thiba Min. Hydro Co. Ltd v Josphat Karu Ndwiga [2013] KEHC 2017 (KLR)

Thiba Min. Hydro Co. Ltd v Josphat Karu Ndwiga [2013] KEHC 2017 (KLR)

REPUBLIC OF  KENYA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KERUGOYA

ELC CASE NO. 596 OF 2013

THIBA MIN. HYDRO CO. LTD .......................................................... PLAINTIFF

VERSUS

JOSPHAT KARU NDWIGA ............................................................ DEFENDANT

RULING

                   This ruling is with respect to the Preliminary Objection raised by the defendant that this suit is sub-judice in view of the pendency of Kerugoya C.M.C.C  No. 176 of 2013 which is pending hearing in the subordinate Court.

                   I have called for and perused the pleadings in Kerugoya C.M.C.C  No. 176 of 2013.  What comes out clearly from those pleadings is as follows:-

  1. That defendant herein is the plaintiff in Kerugoya C.M.C.C No. 176 of 2013.
  2. The plaintiff herein describes itself as a Limited Company but  in Kerugoya C.M.C.C No. 176 of 2013, they are the 15 defendants  who describe themselves as members of a group called THIBA POWER PROJECT  OR THIBA MICRO HYDRO  POWER  and who have put up a power house on the plaintiff’s parcel of land known as L.R  KABARE/NJUKU/215.
  3. In this suit, the plaintiffs claim is loss of Ksh. 700,000/= that they have incurred  after the defendant denied them access to the said power house. The plaintiff also seek an undisclosed  sum as loss of credibility and reputation from it’s customers as well as general damages.    They also seek an injunction.

4.  In Kerugoya C.M.C.C. No. 176 of 2013  the plaintiff  who is the defendant  in this case, has sued some 15 defendants whom he has described in paragraph 4 of his plaint  as follows:-

              “The defendants who purport to be members of a group called  THIBA POWER PROJECT or THIBA MICRO HYDRO POWER” 

   The plaintiff in the said Kerugoya C.M.C.C  No. 176 of 2013  and who is the    

   defendant herein goes on to seek the eviction of the defendants from his land

   KABARE/NJUKU/215  and an order for the demolition of the defendant’s 

    power house on the said parcel of land.

  1. In their defence in Kerugoya C.M.C.C. No.  176  of 2013, the defendants 

     have  filed a counter-claim seeking orders that they have the right to maintain their project on the plaintiff’s land KABARE/NJUKU/215  and the plaintiff should therefore be restrained from interfering  with the said project.

              It is clear from the above that the issues being canvassed in this suit are substantially  the same       issues that are in dispute in Kerugoya C.M.C.C No. 176 of 2013  which was originally a High Court Case (ELC No. 436 of 2013)   but was transferred to the subordinate Court with the consent of the parties as that Court has jurisdiction  over the matter.  Although the plaintiff herein describes itself as a Limited Liability  Company, it is essentially the same 15 defendants who in Kerugoya C.M.C.C  No. 176 of 2013  are described  members of THIBA MICRO-HYDRO POWER PROJECT.

              The Preliminary Objection founded on the sub-judice  rule is therefore well founded. The sub-judice rule is described in Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act  as follows:-

              “No Court shall proceed with the trial of any suit or proceedings  in which the matter in issue is also directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit or proceeding between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, where such suit or proceeding is pending in the same or other Court having jurisdiction  in Kenya to grant the relief claimed”.

     The issue of this matter being sub-judice has been pleaded in paragraphs 11 and 12 of the defence herein.   Although the plaintiff herein is a Limited Liability Company while the defendants in KERUGOYA C.M.C.C No. 176 of 2013  is a group of 15 defendants who have also described themselves as a Self Gelp Group  under the name THIBA MICRO – HYDRO POWER PROJECT, it is clear to me that the plaintiff herein and the defendants  in KERUGOYA C.M.C.C No. 176  of 2013  are really the same litigants and the claim herein can perfectly be litigated  in the suit now before the subordinate Court.   It is not the form in which the suit is framed that determines whether it is sub-judice.   Rather it is the substance of the suit and looking at the pleadings in both cases,  I am satisfied that the claim herein can perfectly  be litigated in KERUGOYA C.M.C.C  No. 176 of 2013  and there can be no justification in having  the two cases being heard parallel to each other.    That would not only be an affront to the sub-judice rule but would also be in violation of the overriding objective of the  Civil Procedure Act  which require under Section 1B that there be an “efficient use of the available judicial and administrative resources”.

              Having considered all the above, I am satisfied that the plea of sub-judice  has properly been invoked in this case.  However, the remedy is not to strike out this suit as the defendant  has asked me to do.   Indeed the marginal notes in Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act read  “stay of suit”.  Since KERUGOYA C.M.C  No. 176 of 2013  has not commenced trial, the orders that commend themselves to me and which I hereby make are as follows:-

  1. This suit is transferred to the Chief Magistrate’s Court Kerugoya for the parties to consider consolidating it with KERUGOYA C.M.C.C  No. 176 of 2013.
  2. If they are unable to do so, this suit shall remain stayed pending the determination  of KERUGOYA C.M.C.C  No. 176 of 2013  but shall nonetheless remain  in that Court until further orders by the trial Court
  3. The plaintiff will meet the costs of this application.

 B.N. OLAO

JUDGE

 8TH OCTOBER, 2013

8/10/2013

Coram

             B.N. Olao – Judge

             CC – Muriithi

Mr. Ndegwa for Applicant – present

Mr. Ombongi for Respondent – present

COURT:     Ruling delivered  this 8th day of October 2013 in open Court

 B.N. OLAO

 JUDGE

  8TH OCTOBER, 2013

▲ To the top

Cited documents 0

Documents citing this one 23

Judgment 23
1. Alwala & another v Otichilo; Vihiga County Government & 2 others (Interested Parties) (Constitutional Petition E004 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 14247 (KLR) (25 August 2022) (Judgment) 1 citation
2. Ibau & 73 others v Langata Development Company Limited & another (Civil Appeal (Application) E453 of 2023) [2024] KECA 240 (KLR) (8 March 2024) (Ruling) 1 citation
3. Okoiti v Njenga & 7 others (Sued as the registered trustees of the Agricultural Society of Kenya) & 19 others (Petition 33 of 2019) [2022] KEHC 74 (KLR) (26 January 2022) (Judgment) 1 citation
4. Abbas (Suing under the power of attorney through Mohamed Ali Nalishad Hussein) v Khamis & 7 others (Judicial Review Application 11 of 2022) [2023] KEELC 22401 (KLR) (29 November 2023) (Ruling)
5. Council of Governors & another v Director of Public Prosecutions & 5 others; Law Society of Kenya & another (Interested Parties) (Petition E 312 of 2020 & 38 of 2019 (Consolidated)) [2022] KEHC 15329 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (6 May 2022) (Judgment)
6. Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission v Otieno & 2 others (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes Civil Suit E011 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 16001 (KLR) (Anti-Corruption and Economic Crimes) (1 December 2022) (Ruling)
7. Gikandi J. Ngibuini t/a Gikandi & Company Advocates v Image Font Limited & 2 others; Ezera Enterprises Limited (Interested Party) (Constitutional Petition E050 of 2021) [2022] KEHC 10345 (KLR) (13 May 2022) (Judgment)
8. Gikiri v Nanak Hospital Management Services & another (Tribunal Case E218 of 2023) [2023] KEBPRT 469 (KLR) (7 September 2023) (Ruling)
9. Gitau & 2 others v Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & 3 others; United Democratic Alliance Party & another (Interested Parties) (Petition E332 & E336 of 2022 & E335 of 2019 (Consolidated)) [2022] KEHC 11523 (KLR) (Constitutional and Human Rights) (1 August 2022) (Ruling)
10. Irabonga v Maries Stopes Kenya Limited (Civil Case E092, E039, E090, E140, E082, E089, E102, E088, E086, E083, E084, E085, E091 & E087 of 2020 (Consolidated)) [2022] KEHC 16195 (KLR) (Civ) (8 December 2022) (Ruling)