Plaintiffs v 2nd & 3rd Defendants (Plot Number 13 Kahawa West Phase II)
The bottom line
#A Nairobi land suit over Plot 13 Kahawa West was struck out because the court had already decided the same dispute in a previous case.
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 instant suit res judicata as alleged by the Applicant
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiffs' suit is res judicata having regard to the judgment in ELC Case No. 808 of 2012 delivered on 8th February 2019
The suit is res judicata; the subject matter and parties are the same as in the former suit and the Plaintiffs are re-litigating a concluded matter. The suit is struck out.
Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and Section 28 of the Environment and Land Court Act bar re-litigation of matters directly and substantially in issue and finally determined by a competent court between the same parties. From the pleadings and the annexed judgment in ELC 808 of 2012, the subject matter (Plot Number 13 Kahawa West Phase II) and parties are identical. Applying the IEBC v Maina Kiai elements and the E.T v Attorney General test, the Plaintiffs seek to re-open issues already determined.
Legal principles established
#- For res judicata to be upheld, five elements must be satisfied conjunctively: same issue directly and substantially in issue, same parties or parties under whom they claim, litigating under the same title, issue heard and finally determined, and the former court competent to try the subsequent suit.
- Courts must guard against litigants evading res judicata by re-framing a resolved cause of action in a new suit.
Court orders
#- 1.The 2nd Defendant's application dated 8th April, 2024 is allowed as prayed
- 2.The Plaintiffs' suit is struck out with costs to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants
- 3.The 2nd Defendant shall have costs of the application
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Environment and Land Court Act, Section 28; Civil Procedure Act, Section 7
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.
In the result I find and hold that the 2nd Defendant’s application dated 8th April, 2024 is merited. It is allowed as prayed. Consequently, this suit is struck out with costs to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants.
The foundation of res judicata thus rest in the public interest for swift, sure and certain justice.
In my view, by filing this suit, the Plaintifi are trying to re-litigate a concluded matter.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not state the case number or the names of the parties in the heading; case title and number cannot be confirmed from the text.
Recurring typographical errors in the judgment (e.g. 'Plaintifis' for 'Plaintiffs', 'efiectively', 'afiords').
The striking-out application sought dismissal and costs only against the Plaintiffs, yet the court awarded costs to both the 2nd and 3rd Defendants without the 3rd Defendant having applied.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Plaintiffs v 2nd & 3rd Defendants (Plot Number 13 Kahawa West Phase II)", Case Analysis (2024). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4403/eng@2024-05-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.