Buses v Choge (Land Originating Summons E007 of 2025)
The bottom line
#A Kapsabet land court merged two related land disputes over the same property into one case, postponing a decision on whether the suit should be struck out.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the defendant's preliminary objection on locus standi and res judicata should strike out the suit
- 2.Whether this suit should be consolidated with Kapsabet ELCLOS No. E009 of 2026
Key legal issues
#Consolidation of related suits
The court consolidated the two suits because they involve the same parties, the same suit property and common questions of law and fact
The defendant in this suit is the same defendant in Kapsabet ELCLOS No. E009 of 2026, and the suit property LR No. Nandi/Ndalat/281 is the same in both matters. Relying on the Law Society of Kenya v Centre for Human Rights and Democracy decision of the Supreme Court, the court held that consolidation serves efficiency and fairness, and noted its earlier observations in the 22nd July 2026 ruling in the companion suit.
Preliminary objection on locus standi and res judicata
The preliminary objection was not determined at this stage; the court directed that submissions be filed in respect of both preliminary objections after consolidation
The defendant filed a preliminary objection dated 25th April 2026 seeking to strike out the suit on grounds including locus standi and res judicata. Both parties had filed and exchanged submissions, but rather than rule on the objection, the court consolidated the suits and directed further submissions on the two preliminary objections pending in both files, with a mention date for compliance and directions.
Legal principles established
#- Consolidation of suits is to facilitate efficient, expeditious, fair and impartial delivery of justice without occasioning prejudice to any party
Court orders
#- 1.Kapsabet ELCLOS No. E009 of 2026 be consolidated with this suit, which shall be the lead file
- 2.Defendant's counsel to file and serve submissions or further submissions on the two preliminary objections within three days
- 3.Plaintiff's counsel to file and serve submissions within days upon service
- 4.Consolidated suits fixed for mention on 1st October 2026 to confirm compliance and for further directions
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (Environment and Land Court) - not expressly stated in the ruling
- Consolidated with
- Kapsabet ELCLOS No. E009 of 2026
Relief refused
#Immediate determination or striking out of the suit on the preliminary objection
Court deferred the preliminary objections to be handled after consolidation, with submissions to be filed in both matters
Costs
No costs order made
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Kapsabet ELCLOS No. E009 of 2026 be consolidated with this suit which shall be the lead file.
the essence of consolidation is to facilitate efficient, expeditious, fairness and impartial delivery of justice without occasioning prejudice to any party
the defendant through Cheruiyot and Partners Advocates generated a preliminary objection dated 25th April 2026 seeking to strike out the instant suit instituted by way of an originating summons dated 23rd July 2025
Issues in the judgment
#Companion suit number E009 of 2026 postdates this 2025 suit, an apparent anomaly in numbering
Filing deadline for plaintiff's submissions is incomplete
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Buses v Choge (Land Originating Summons E007 of 2025)", Case Analysis (2026). Land Originating Summons E007 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5986/eng@2026-09-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.