Simon Peter Waweru Maina v Munyaka Kuna Company Limited [2021] KEELC 2304 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a land suit because it re-fought disputes already decided, reinforcing that recycled litigation will be stopped.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this application (to strike out the plaint) is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the plaint should be struck out as scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, prejudicial or an abuse of process under Order 2 rule 15(1)
Yes - the plaint was struck out because the suit is res judicata and an abuse of the court process
The defendant had already been declared owner of six acres out of LR No 42/11 in ELC 107 of 2011, and the plaintiff's titles LR 42/32 and 42/33 had been nullified and cancelled in Succession Cause No 625 of 2009. The subject matter of this suit is the same as in the previous suits between the same parties; the claim that the issues were not previously adjudicated cannot stand. The suit re-opens litigated issues and is an abuse of process.
Legal principles established
#- Res judicata bars re-litigation of matters directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties litigating under the same title, heard and finally decided by a competent court
- Adding or subtracting litigants does not sanitize a suit that is substantially related to a previous suit with the same subject matter from the doctrine of res judicata
Court orders
#- 1.That the plaint filed by the plaintiff be struck out with costs of the defendant/applicant
- 2.That costs of this application be borne by the plaintiff/respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 2 rule 15(1)(b), (c) & (d) of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010; sections 1A, 1B, 3 and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Relief refused
#Judgment entered in favour of the defendant as prayed in the defence
The court struck out the plaint but did not enter judgment as prayed in the defence; only the striking-out and costs orders were granted
Costs
The plaint struck out with costs of the defendant/applicant; costs of the application borne by the plaintiff/respondent
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.
It is not for nothing that the jurisdiction of the court to strike out pleadings has been described variously as draconian, drastic, discretionary, a guillotine process, summary and an order or last resort.
The foundation of res judicata thus rest in the public interest for swift, sure and certain justice
In conclusion, I find merit in this application and the same is allowed. I grant the orders sought namely:(a) That the plaint filed by the plaintiff be struck out with costs of the defendant/applicant.
Issues in the judgment
#The succession cause is referred to with inconsistent numbers in the judgment
The name of the deceased is spelt inconsistently (Demase, Demasi, Demenico, Domenico)
The number of the present suit is not stated in the judgment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Simon Peter Waweru Maina v Munyaka Kuna Company Limited [2021] KEELC 2304 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2021). ELC Case (Notice of Motion dated 1st October 2020) - number not stated. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2021/2304/eng@2021-07-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.