Zelma Atieno Ogada v Fintel Limited & 6 Others; Juma Salim Kirinzo (Suing as the Administrator ad litem of the Estate of the late Salim Mwakirinzo) v The Land Registrar – Kwale & 8 Others

THE ATTORNEY ……………………… 2ND ……………..…………… 3RD GENERAL DEFENDANT ZELMA ATIENO OGADA DEFENDANT FINTEL LIMITED …………..……………………… 4TH DEFENDANT CHAMBEDO HOLDINGS …………….. 5TH …………….………… 6TH LIMITED DEFENDANT MESALIM SALIM KIRINZO DEFENDANT SALIM KIRINZO …………………. 7TH KIPKIRUI NG’ETICH ………………… 8TH ………..…………………… 9TH MWANAJUMA DEFENDANT CHARLES DEFENDANT CHAMBEDO LIMITED DEFENDANT RULING I. Introduction 1. Arising from the peculiar circumstances surrounding the two ( 2 ) cases before this Honourable Court, it decided upon itself to provide direction. Principally, this was intended to expedite the matters. Thus, the direction consists of a short preamble, the background of the matter, observations and some pragmatic and practical recommendations on how to chart out the way forward. ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 2 of 25

page 2 of 25

2. In so doing, the Court has been wholly informed and guided by a number of Constitutional dicta and statutory tenets. These include the provision of Articles 25 ( c ), 50 ( 1 ), 159 ( 2 ) ( b ) & ( d ) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010 on fair hearing, “Justice should not be denied nor delayed”; “Justice shall be administered without undue regard to procedural technicalities”. 3. From the statutory view point – the provision of Sections 1A, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21; Section 3 of the Environment & Land Act, No. 19 of 2011 – on the Principle of Overriding Objectives (OO) Rule. The Rule holds that:- “..it is to facilitate the just, expeditious, proportionate, accessible and affordable resolution of the Civil disputes by the Act”. 4. Ideally, Courts are invited to address the issue of multiplicity of suits and to give directions that would allow the dispute to proceed in an orderly, expeditious, and just manner. 5. Fundamentally, these two ( 2 ) cases are in respect of the root of title, ownership and alleged fraudulent dealings in connection with all that parcel of land known as Land Parcel No. Kwale/Galu Kinondo/34, measuring approximately 0.8 Hectares (approximately 1.976 Acres) situate in Kinondo Location, Kwale County (Hereinafter referred to as “the Suit Property”). The suits are namely:- ELCC No. 4 of 2022 – Zelma ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 3 of 25

page 3 of 25

Atieno Ogada – Versus - Fintel Limited & 6 Others; and ELCLC No. E099 of Administrator 2025 ad – Juma litem of Salim the Kirinzo Estate of (Suing the as late the Salim Mwakirinzo) – Versus - The Land Registrar – Kwale & 8 Others”. II. The brief background 6. For ease of information and accuracy, the Honourable Court shall dwell on brief ground as pertaining to these cases. Procedurally, on 29th June, 2026, the matters came up for hearing. The Plaintiff, in ELCLC E099 of 2025 was granted leave effect service by substituted means of which they claim they did so as there was no proof to that effect under Order 5 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 (Hereinafter referred to as “The Rules”). Despite the service parties are yet to file their pleadings and trial bundles and comply with the provision of Orders 7 and 11 of the Rules. 7. Consequently, based on the existence of the second case – ELC No. 4 of 2022 over the same subject matter, the court noted there would be need to issue directions on the two (2) matters to be consolidated under Section 81 (h) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 (Hereinafter referred to as “The Act”) since the subject matter and the parties appear the same. Indeed, the Plaintiff in ELCLC No. E099 of 2025 expressly ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 4 of 25

page 4 of 25

pleaded, at paragraphs 16 to 19 of his Plaint, the existence of the earlier suit and his intention to seek, at the earliest opportune time, an order of consolidation so that the two suits may be heard together. Thus, the Court directed that both matters be listed together to consider their consolidation and to give uniform directions. 8. Upon perusing both files and hearing brief presentations by the Learned Counsels, the Court observed as follows:a. Both matters concern the same Suit Property, being Land Parcel No. Kwale/Galu Kinondo/34, and revolve around the same central controversy: the root of title thereto, the existence of two (2) parallel and conflicting Green Cards, and the validity of the competing titles and entries made in respect thereof. b. The parties in the two suits substantially overlap. The Plaintiff in ELCC No. 4 of 2022, Zelma Atieno Ogada, is the 3rd Defendant in ELCLC No. E099 of 2025, while Fintel Limited, Chambedo Holdings Limited, Mesalim Salim Kirinzo, Mwanajuma Salim Kirinzo and Charles Kipkirui Ng’etich are common Defendants in both suits. The Hon. Attorney General is likewise a party in both records. ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 5 of 25

page 5 of 25

c. The Plaintiff in ELCLC No. E099 of 2025, Juma Salim Kirinzo, had earlier been enjoined as a Plaintiff in ELCC No. 4 of 2022 upon his own application and by order of this Honourable Court, with the initial intention of amending the Plaint therein to reflect the claim of the Estate of the late Salim Mwakirinzo, before electing, on account of material differences between the two claims, to institute a separate suit on behalf of the Estate. 9. Hence, it was based on this information, that the Court issued interim directions requiring service of pleadings, for the Defendants to obtain instructions, and for a mention to report compliance and to consider consolidation and conducting of intense Pre-trial conference pursuant to the provision of Order 11 of the Rules on case management thereof. III. The brief facts of the cases & Observations 10. As indicated above, upon hearing the presentations by Counsel and perusal of the record, the Honourable Court has made the following observations. Firstly, it is clear that this is a case of multiplicity of suits pertaining to a common ELCC 4 of 2022 subject matter and substantially HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI common Page 6 of 25

page 6 of 25

parties. Secondly, both suits arise from the same root of title, it being common ground on the face of both Green Cards that the first and initial registered owner of the Suit Property was the late Salim Mwakirinzo, with the contradictions and conflicting ownership claims arising only from the subsequent dealings, transfers and entries. 11. For ease of reference, the brief facts of the cases from the filed pleadings are as follows. A. ELCC No. 4 of 2022 – Zelma Atieno Ogada – Versus - Fintel Limited & 6 Others, instituted by way of a Plaint which was Amended on 31st May, 2023 before the Environment and Land Court at Kwale, premised on the Plaintiff’s claim to absolute and indefeasible ownership of the Suit Property, the alleged fraudulent, forged and backdated title procured in favour of the 1st Defendant, and the alleged unlawful and unprocedural cancellation of the Plaintiff’s Certificate of Title and Green Card by the Land Registrar, Kwale. B. The Plaintiff avers that at all material times she was and remains the registered owner of the Suit Property, having acquired the same on or about 22nd August, 2014 from Chambedo Holdings Limited, Mesalim Salim Kirinzo and Mwanajuma Salim Kirinzo, the 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants therein, for valuable consideration of a sum of Kenya Shillings Eighteen Million (Kshs. 18,000,000/-), part of which, being a sum of Kenya Shillings Eight Million Four ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 7 of 25

page 7 of 25

Hundred Thousand (Kshs. 8,400,000/-), was paid through Abdalla Kengo Sirisiri, the 6th Defendant therein, who acted as the principal agent of the alleged owners, and a sum of Kenya Shillings Ten Million (Kshs. 10,000,000/-) of which was paid to Chambedo Holdings Limited. The Transfer was presented and registered on 29th September, 2014, whereupon a Title Deed was issued in the Plaintiff’s name on even date. C. The Plaintiff states that she conducted thorough due diligence prior to the acquisition, having carried out official searches dated 19th June, 2014 and 30th July, 2014 at the Kwale District Lands Registry, both of which indicated Chambedo Holdings Limited as the registered owner, which position was confirmed by the then District Land Registrar, Mr. Ng’etich, the 7th Defendant therein. A post-registration Official Search dated 29th September, 2014 confirmed the Plaintiff as the registered owner of the Suit Property. D. The Plaintiff further holds that the 1 st Defendant, Fintel Limited, illegally, irregularly and unlawfully procured, through fraudulent means, a title allegedly issued on 24 th May, 2011, which title, the Plaintiff contends, was deliberately backdated to create the impression that it was first in time. The Plaintiff relies, inter alia, on a witness statement dated 9th February, 2015 by Mr. Joseph Kiprotich Koskei, the former Land Registrar, Kwale, disowning the said title as one never issued by him, absent from his record books of issued titles, unsupported by any documentation, and ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 8 of 25

page 8 of 25

believed by him to be a forgery; and on the findings of the National Land Commission dated 5th October, 2015, which, upon investigation, found no sufficient and valid documentation confirming the genuineness of the said title, and resolved that the same be revoked and ownership revert to the Plaintiff. E. The Plaintiff posited that in or about January 2016, through an official search dated 26th January, 2016, she discovered that the Suit Property had been registered in favour of the 1 st Defendant, and that the Land Registrar, Kwale, without any colour of right, unlawfully and without due regard to the sanctity of the Plaintiff’s Certificate of Title, proceeded to revoke and/or cancel the Plaintiff’s Green Card and Certificate of Title without following the due process of law, in breach of the provision of Sections 69 and 87 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012 and Article 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. She has particularized illegality and negligence against the Defendants and quantified her loss and damage at Kenya Shillings Eighteen Million, Five Hundred and Ninety Thousand (Kshs. 18,590,000/-), comprising the purchase price, stamp duty, legal fees, consent fees, and valuation and facilitation fees. 12. The Plaintiff in ELCC No. 4 of 2022 seeks for the following reliefs that: a. A declaration that the Plaintiff is the registered as an absolute and indefeasible owner of Land Reference Kwale/Galu Kinondo/34 ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 9 of 25

page 9 of 25

b. A declaration that the Title issued to the 1t Defendants in respect of the Plaintiffs parcel of land Kwale/Galu Kinondo/34 was issued irregularly, procedurally, fraudulently, unlawfully and illegally and is therefore invalid, null and void. c. An Order directed to the Registrar of Lands Kwale to revoke, cancel, destroy, void and or nullify the Certificates of Titles and the Green Card in respect of Land Reference No. Kwale/Galu Kinondo/34 issued in favour of the 1t Defendants and destruction and or nullification in the Kenya Gazette d. A permanent injunction to issue restraining the 1" Defendant, jointly and severally, their agents, servants, relatives and or any person under instructions from the Defendants from further interfering and or in any way dealing with Land Reference No Kwale/ Galu Kinondo/34. e. In the alternative, that the 3 rd, 4th and 5th Defendants, jointly and severally, be ordered to refund the Plaintiff the purchase price for the suit property that being a sum of Kenya Shillings Eighteen Million (Kshs. 18,000,000/=) together with interest from the date of receipt of the said funds to date or in the alternative, according to the shares received by the Defendants. f. The 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants be ordered to pay the Plaintiff the amount of Kenya Shillings Five Hundred and Ninety Thousand (Kshs. 590,000/=) being payment incurred by the ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 10 of 25

page 10 of 25

Plaintiff towards stamp duty payment, legal fees, costs of obtaining the Land Control Board Consent, and valuation. g. In the event that the 3rd , 4th and 5th Defendants were found by this Honourable Cour not to have been the actual registered owners of Kwale/Galu Kinondo/34 at the time of the purchase, this Honourable Court be pleased to order the Regional Criminal Investigation Officer (RCIO) Coast Region and or any police station to undertake thorough and investigation on the same and ultimately prefer charges against the aforesaid Defendants and or any of them. h. This Honourable Court be pleased to order the 7 th Defendant be ordered to compensate the Plaintiff for his negligence, conspiracy and misrepresentation as to the actual ownership of the property. i. Alternatively, the Defendants jointly and severally compensate the Plaintiff for the loss and damage suffered as enumerated herein above and for the cost of the investment made by the Plaintiff on the said parcel of land j. Costs of this suit and interest thereon and any other orders B. ELCLC No. E099 of 2025 – Juma Salim Kirinzo (Suing as the Administrator ad litem of the Estate of the late Salim Mwakirinzo ) – Versus - The Land Registrar – Kwale & 8 Others. a) It was instituted by way of a Plaint dated 25th September, 2025 before the Environment and Land Court at Kwale, premised on the ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 11 of 25

page 11 of 25

claim that the Estate of the late Salim Mwakirinzo is the lawful and indefeasible owner of the Suit Property, and that all entries, titles and registrations subsequent to the first registration of the Deceased are tainted with fraud and illegality, having given rise to two (2) parallel and conflicting Green Cards over the Suit Property. b) The Plaintiff, being the son and duly appointed legal representative of the Estate of the late Salim Mwakirinzo, having obtained a Grant ad litem in that respect, avers that at all material times the late Salim Mwakirinzo was the registered proprietor of the Suit Property, and that the Defendants, jointly and severally, through fraudulent schemes, illegal alterations of records and collusion with land officials, unlawfully interfered with the Estate’s ownership thereof. c) The Plaintiff holds that as a result of the said fraudulent dealings, there now exist two (2) conflicting Green Cards in respect of the Suit Property, one favouring the 3rd Defendant (Zelma Atieno Ogada) and the other favouring the 4th Defendant (Fintel Limited), and that both sets of titles and entries procured in favour of the respective Defendants and their assigns are tainted with fraud and illegality and cannot confer good title as contemplated under the provision of Section 26 of the Land Registration Act, No. 3 of 2012. d) The Plaintiff asserts that it is not in dispute, as is evident on the face of both Green Cards, that the first and initial registered owner was the Deceased, and that the contradictions and irregularities only arise after the first entry, when subsequent dealings, transfers and entries were unlawfully and fraudulently introduced into the records. ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 12 of 25

page 12 of 25

He has particularized negligence, fraud, irregularity and/or illegality against the Defendants, jointly and severally, including: the opening of parallel and conflicting Green Cards; the making of fraudulent entries without authority, consent or lawful transfer from the Estate; the backdating, alteration and manipulation of records at the Kwale Lands Registry; purported transfers without letters of administration or the consent of the Estate; collusion with officers at the Lands Registry to effect unlawful cancellations and new registrations; the preparation of and reliance upon forged transfer instruments and conveyancing documents; breach of the provision of Sections 24, 25 and 26 of the Land Registration Act; and violation of Articles 40 and 47 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010. e) The Plaintiff claims that the Estate of the late Salim Mwakirinzo remains the lawful and indefeasible owner of the Suit Property, no lawful transfer having been effected by the Estate, and that the purported transfers and registrations in favour of some of the Defendants, and the subsequent transactions in favour of the 3 rd, 4th , 5th and 9th Defendants, are null and void ab initio. f) Significantly, the Plaintiff expressly pleads, at the contents of Paragraphs 16 to 19 of the Plaint, the existence of the ongoing suit before this Honourable Court, being ELCC No. 4 of 2022, regarding the same Suit Property and a similar cause of action; that he was enjoined to the said proceedings as a Plaintiff upon his application and by order of this Honourable Court; that owing to material differences between his claim and that of the Plaintiff therein, he ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 13 of 25

page 13 of 25

deemed it prudent to file a separate claim on behalf of the Estate; and that he shall, at the earliest opportune time, seek an order of consolidation so that the two ( 2 ) suits may be heard together, thereby avoiding conflicting findings and ensuring a comprehensive determination of all issues relating to the Suit Property. 13. In the long run, the Plaintiff seeks for the following reliefs that: a. A declaration that the Estate of the late Salim Mwakirinzo is the lawful and rightful owner of Land Parcel No. Kwale/Galu Kinondo/34. b. A declaration that all titles, entries and registrations made in favour of the Defendants and/or any other party claiming through them in respect of the Suit Property are fraudulent, illegal, null and void. c. An order directing the Land Registrar, Kwale, to cancel and expunge all such fraudulent entries and restore the title to the name of the Estate of the late Salim Mwakirinzo, and to issue a duplicate or new title deed in the name of the late Salim Mwakirinzo. d. A permanent injunction restraining the Defendants, their servants, agents or assigns from trespassing, alienating, transferring, charging or otherwise interfering with the Plaintiff’s quiet possession of the Suit Property. e. In the alternative, an order directing the Defendants, jointly and severally, to indemnify the Estate in respect of the loss of ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 14 of 25

page 14 of 25

the Suit Property at the current market value; any other relief the Court may deem just; and costs of the suit. 14. Upon service of the Summons to Enter appearance, all the Defendants filed their Defences and Counter – Claims according. Nonetheless, taking that they may not provide any value addition to this directions, the Court shall not need to re – produce the said pleadings herein. Instead, it will reserve them for the main full trial. IV. Analysis And Determination 15. Having considered all the pleadings in both suits, the responses and the envision of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and the relevant provisions of law, I am left with only one singular issue for consideration - Whether the civil suits - ELCC No. 4 of 2022 and ELCLC No. E099 of 2025 should be consolidated? 16. The law governing the consolidation of files is founded under the provision of Section 80 (h) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and Order 11 Rule3 (I) (h) of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010 states as follows: 3. (1) With disposal of a view cases to furthering and case expeditious management the court shall within thirty days after the close of ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 15 of 25

page 15 of 25

pleadings convene a Case Conference in which it shall— (a)------(h) Consider consolidation of suits; 17. Indeed, the Rules mandates courts to consider consolidations of suit. In so doing, courts to be guided by the following three (3) legal parameters. These are: a) Do the same question of law or fact arise in both cases? b) Do the rights or reliefs claimed in the two cases or more arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions? c) Will any party be disadvantaged or prejudiced or will consolidation confer undue advantage to the other party? 18. The principles to consider while consolidating suits were amply set out in the case of:- “Nairobi ELC Suit No. 1000 of 2012 Joseph Okoyo – Versus - Edwin Dickson Wasunna (2014) eKLR”, which cited with approval Mombasa in the case of:- “HCCC No. 992 of 1994 Nyati Security Guards and Services – Versus - Municipal Council of Mombasa” wherein the factors were enumerated as follows:- ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 16 of 25

page 16 of 25

“The situations in which consolidation can be ordered include where there are two or more suits or matters pending in the same court where: (a) Some common question of law or fact arises in both or all of them; or (b) The rights or relief claimed in them are in respect of, or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions, or (c) For some other reason it is desirable to make an order for consolidating them.” 19. In the course of time, the High Court has expansively deliberated on this legal concept. Hence, there will be no point to re – invent the wheel. However, I will proceed to cite some of the known precedents herein. In the case of:“Law Society of Kenya – Versus – The Centre for Human Rights & Democracy, Supreme Court of Kenya Petition No. 14 of 2013 the SOK held that: “The essence of consolidation is to facilitate the efficient and expeditious disposal of disputes and to provide a framework for a fair and impartial dispensation of justice to the parties. Consolidation was never meant to confer any undue advantage upon the party that seeks it, nor was it intended to occasion any disadvantage towards the party that opposes it” ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 17 of 25

page 17 of 25

20. While Maraga J, as he then was, held in the ae of: “Municipal Council of Mombasa – Versus - Municipal Council of Mombasa [2004] eKLR” that: ‘Consolidation is a process by which two or more suits or matters are by order of court combined or united and treated as one suit or matter. The main purpose of consolidation is to save costs, time and effort and to make the conduct of several actions more convenient by treating them as one action. The situations in which consolidation can be ordered include where there are two or more suits or matters pending in the same court where: 1. some common question of law or fact arises in both or all of them; or 2. the rights or relief claimed in them are in respect of, or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions, or 3. for some other reason it is desirable to make an order for consolidating them. 21. Upon close scrutiny of the pleadings herein, it is evident that both ELCC No. 4 of 2022 and ELCLC No. E099 of 2025 relate to the same Suit Property, being Land Parcel No. Kwale/Galu Kinondo/34, and to the same underlying ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 18 of 25

page 18 of 25

controversy: the root of title to the Suit Property, the existence of two (2) parallel and conflicting Green Cards, and the validity or otherwise of the competing titles, entries and registrations made in respect thereof. While the former suit is prosecuted by Zelma Atieno Ogada asserting her registered title as against the allegedly forged and backdated title of Fintel Limited, the latter suit is prosecuted on behalf of the Estate of the late Salim Mwakirinzo, the undisputed first registered proprietor, asserting that all entries subsequent to the first registration – including those in favour of both Zelma Atieno Ogada and Fintel Limited – are tainted with fraud and illegality. 22. The Court has already observed that the underlying questions in both matters revolve around the same core dispute: who, as between the Estate of the late Salim Mwakirinzo, Zelma Atieno Ogada and Fintel Limited, holds good title to the Suit Property; the circumstances under which the two conflicting Green Cards came into existence; and the reliefs arising therefrom. The reliefs sought – whether declarations of ownership, cancellation and expunging of entries, restoration of title, permanent ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 19 of 25

page 19 of 25

injunctions, vesting, refunds, indemnity or general damages – cannot be determined in isolation without risking inconsistent or contradictory findings by this Court over the same property, the same Green Cards and the same registry entries. 23. As already noted, both suits share substantially the same parties. The Plaintiff in ELCC No. 4 of 2022 is the 3 rd Defendant in ELCLC No. E099 of 2025; Fintel Limited, Chambedo Holdings Limited, Mesalim Salim Kirinzo, Mwanajuma Salim Kirinzo and Charles Kipkirui Ng’etich are common to both suits; and the Hon. Attorney General features in both records. These overlaps demonstrate that the two suits stem from the same series of transactions and events touching on the Suit Property. 24. The Court has further noted that the Plaintiff in ELCLC No. E099 of 2025 has himself, in his own pleadings, acknowledged the existence of the pending suit ELCC No. 4 of 2022 over the same Suit Property with a similar cause of action, and has expressly pleaded his intention to seek consolidation of the two ( 2 ) suits in order to avoid conflicting findings. Indeed, the said Plaintiff was previously enjoined as a Plaintiff in ELCC No. 4 of 2022 by ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 20 of 25

page 20 of 25

order of this Court before electing to file a separate claim on behalf of the Estate. This acknowledgement fortifies the Court’s finding that the two suits are intertwined and ought to be managed as one. 25. Additionally, the Court has noted that consolidation will not occasion any delay or prejudice to any of the parties. On the contrary, it will save time, judicial resources, and costs, in line with Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 and Section 3 of the Environment & Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011 on the overriding objective, and it will bring before the Court, in one composite proceeding, all the parties whose claims and interests touch on the Suit Property, thereby ensuring that the question of its true ownership is determined once and with finality. 26. Guided by the reasoning in the case of: - “Law Society of Kenya v. Centre for Human Rights & Democracy (supra) and Joseph Okoyo – Versus - Edwin Dickson Wasunna (Supra), this Court finds that the consolidation of these suits will serve the ends of justice by enabling one coherent and comprehensive ELCC 4 of 2022 determination on HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI the rights and Page 21 of 25

page 21 of 25

obligations of all the parties arising from the competing claims of ownership over the suit land. 27. Thus, the Court holds that both suits raise common questions of law and fact, arise from the same transaction and series of transactions concerning substantially the same parties and the same property, and that consolidation will ensure consistency, avoid duplication and the risk of conflicting decisions, and facilitate expeditious resolution without prejudice to any party V. Conclusion & Directions 28. Ultimately, the upshot of this in-depth and elaborate analysis and based on the inherent powers vested in me under the provisions of Sections 1, 1A, 3, 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Section 3 of Environment and Land Court Act, No. 19 of 2011, Section 101 of the Land Registration No. 3 of 2012, Sections 128 and 150 of the Land Act No. 6 of 2012, I proceed to make the following practical, pragmatic and precise orders/directions: a) THAT the two ( 2 ) suits namely, ELCC No. 4 of 2022 and ELCLC No. E099 of 2025, be and are hereby consolidated as they relate to substantially the same parties, the same subject matter, and the ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 22 of 25

page 22 of 25

same series of transactions touching on Land Parcel No. Kwale/Galu Kinondo/34; b) THAT the file ELCC No. 4 of 2022, being the earlier suit to be instituted, be the lead file where all filings of pleadings will be done and proceedings recorded from henceforth; c) THAT the Plaint in ELCLC No. E099 of 2025 be deemed as incorporated within the consolidated proceedings in ELCC No. 4 of 2022, and the parties shall, if they deem necessary, file a consolidated or Amended Plaint WITHIN TWENTY-ONE (21) DAYS from the date of these directions, failing which the existing pleadings in the respective suits shall stand as the operative pleadings in the consolidated suit – the parties being the Plaintiffs and Defendants in two suits to retain their legal capacities as as such. d) THAT the Defendants shall, within twenty-one (21) days of service of any consolidated or Amended Plaint, or within twenty-one (21) days from the date of these directions (whichever is applicable), file and serve ELCC 4 of 2022 their consolidated HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI or Amended Page 23 of 25

page 23 of 25

Statements of Defence/the Counter Claim in response to the operative pleadings; under the provision of Orders 7 and 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. e) THAT the matter be mentioned on 5th November, 2026 for taking of elaborate and further directions with regard to disposal of the matter. There shall be a hearing on 1st March, 2027 before the ELC No. 1 at Kwale preferably through Physical Means. Consequently, the scheduled hearing date of 5 th November, 2026 shall be vacated accordingly. f) THAT an order be and is hereby made directing the Land Registrar, inhibition Kinondo/34 Kwale against Land pending County, to register Parcel No. Kwale/Galu the hearing and an final determination of the consolidated suit, in order to preserve the said Suit Property based on “the Doctrine of Lis Pendens”. g) THAT costs of and incidental to these directions shall be in the cause. IT IS SO ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 24 of 25

page 24 of 25

RULING DELIVERED POSTED THROUGH THE JUDICIARY CASE TRACKING SYSTEM (CTS) MEANS SIGNED & DATED AT KWALE THIS …………30TH ……... DAY OF ………... SEPTEMBER ………2026 …………………………………… HON. MR. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI ENVIRONMENT & LAND COURT AT KWALE Ruling/Direction delivered in the presence of:a) Mr. Daniel Disii, the Court Assistant. b) M/s. Nafula Advocate holding brief for Mr. Khalid Salim Advocate for M/s. Zelma Atieno – a Plaintiff. c) Mr. Oliech Advocate for Juma Salim Kirinzo – a Plaintiff. d) M/s. Kiti Advocate for the Land Registrar, Kwale & the Hon. Attorney General. e) Mr. Kimani Advocate for M/s. Fintel Limited – a Defendant. f) Mr. Nyariki Advocate for Mwanajuma Salimu Kirinzo & Mesalim Salim Kirinzo - Defendants. g) Mr. Olunya Advocate for M/s. Chambedo Company Limited - a Defendant. ELCC 4 of 2022 HON. JUSTICE L.L NAIKUNI Page 25 of 25

page 25 of 25