Salama Wanjiku Mumba v Mumba Chome Waro & 3 others (ruling on injunction applications)
The bottom line
#Even a strong land dispute case can lose on injunction if the same property is already before another Kenyan court — join or stay that case first.
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 Court should review its earlier orders of declining to issue an ex parte injunction
- 2.Whether to issue a temporary injunction pending the hearing and determination of the main suit
- 3.Who should bear the costs of the motions filed herein
Key legal issues
#Whether the application was res judicata given the Kilifi Magistrates Court ruling
Res judicata was not established because the plaintiff here was not a party to the Kilifi matter and the reliefs differ; however the sub judice concern remained decisive
The court accepted the applicant's reliance on Gladys Nduku Nthuki v Letshego Kenya Limited, holding the doctrine requires the same parties litigating under the same title. Mombasa Cement, the plaintiff in the Kilifi case, does not represent the plaintiff here, and the prayers here (revocation of title for fraud) differ from the refund claim in Kilifi. The Kilifi ruling also did not fully and finally decide entitlement to the property, rendering the res judicata objection moot.
Whether a temporary injunction should issue over property in active litigation in another court
No. Even though a prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience were demonstrated, the same parcel Kilifi/Roka/794 is the subject of the pending Kilifi MELC No. 49 of 2020, and issuing the injunction would in effect stop those proceedings
Applying Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and the sub judice doctrine as explained in Daniel Kipkemoi Bett, the court found the suit property substantially in issue in the Kilifi case, whose injunction application had been dismissed, prompting the statutory power of sale. Allowing both suits to proceed risks conflicting outcomes. The proper course was for the applicant to seek joinder in the Kilifi suit or a stay of it, neither of which was done.
Whether the Court should review its earlier refusal to grant an ex parte injunction
Nothing to review; the ex parte injunction had already issued on 20th December 2023 and the two motions were the same
The court noted it had granted an ex parte injunction on 20th December 2023 restraining sale pending the inter partes hearing. The later application seeking review was therefore redundant as both motions were identical; the only live question was the inter partes injunction, which was refused on sub judice grounds.
Legal principles established
#- Res judicata does not apply where the parties and reliefs differ; the plaintiff in this suit was not a party to the Kilifi matter and the prayers sought here are more expansive
- A court of competent jurisdiction cannot issue an injunction affecting a matter pending before another competent court where sub judice concerns arise, absent a stay of the prior proceedings or appellate invocation
Court orders
#- 1.Application dated 14th December 2023 as duplicated in the one dated 19th December 2023 dismissed with costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (the Court held it 'has jurisdiction to entertain the matter'); governed by the Civil Procedure Act including Section 6 on sub judice
Relief refused
#Review of the Court's earlier orders declining an ex parte injunction
An ex parte injunction had already issued on 20th December 2023 and the motions were the same, so there was nothing to review
Temporary injunction restraining sale of Kilifi/Roka/794 pending the main suit
Although the Giella threshold was arguably met, the same property is in active litigation in Kilifi MELC No. 49 of 2020 and the Court cannot issue an injunction affecting a matter pending before another competent court; the applicant has not sought a stay of the Kilifi proceedings or to be joined to them
Costs
Application dated 14th December 2023 as duplicated in the one dated 19th December 2023 dismissed with costs.
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.
Application dated 14th December 2023 as duplicated in the one dated 19th December 2023 dismissed with costs.
Whereas this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the matter, it cannot issue an injunction to afiect a matter pending before another competent Court.
The suggestion by the 2nd respondent that the doctrine of res judicata holds in this matter, given the ruling in the Kilifi matter, is moot.
The applicant has an avenue of applying to be joined as a party and, in the Kilifi action, ventilate the issues raised in this suit or apply to stay the Kilifi cause to give way for this one to proceed.
It may lead to incongruent decisions and ultimate orders emanating therefrom and place the rule of law in disrepute.
Issues in the judgment
#Paragraph numbering is internally inconsistent - the quoted extracts within paragraph 33 are numbered 20, 21, 32 and the judgment restarts numbering at '20.' after paragraph 33
The applicant's name is not stated; the judgment refers only to 'the plaintifi' and identifies her as administrator of the estate of Mumba Chome Waro, while the 1st defendant acquired title in the same succession matter
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Salama Wanjiku Mumba v Mumba Chome Waro & 3 others (ruling on injunction applications)", Case Analysis (2024). ELC Case No. 49 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4411/eng@2024-05-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.