Maria v Repando (Environment and Land Case E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5827 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a land suit because the same parties had already settled the identical dispute through a court-adopted consent in an earlier 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 suit before this Court offends the doctrine of res judicata under the provision of Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21.
- 2.Who will bear the costs of the Notice of Motion application dated 5th March, 2025.
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit is barred by res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act
The suit is res judicata because the same parties settled the same subject matter in Kwale CMELC No. E005 of 2023 through a consent adopted as a judgment of the court on 24th May, 2023.
The court examined the annexures, particularly the consent marked 'MAR-2', and found it was adopted as a consent judgment. The former suit involved the same parties, same subject matter and same issues. The plaintiff neither sought review nor appealed against the consent judgment, so re-litigating the same dispute offends Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, which guarantees finality of litigation and bars multiplicity of suits.
Who bears the costs of the application
Costs of the application and the suit were awarded to the Defendant/Applicant as the successful party.
The court applied the principle in Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act that costs follow the event, supported by Harun Mutwiri v Nairobi City County Government, Kenya Union of Commercial, Food and Allied Workers v Bidco Africa Limited and Hussein Muhumed Sirat v Attorney General, holding the successful party entitled to costs absent exceptional circumstances.
Legal principles established
#- A consent order adopted by the court becomes a consent judgment of the court and is final; a subsequent suit over the same subject matter between the same parties is res judicata.
- The doctrine of res judicata requires five conditions to coexist: same matter directly and substantially in issue, same parties or privies, litigating under the same title, a competent court, and a final decision.
- Costs follow the event under Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and the successful party is typically entitled to costs.
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion application dated 5th March, 2025 be and is hereby found to have merit and is allowed in its entirety.
- 2.This Court finds that the instant suit has the elements of res judicata.
- 3.The suit be and is hereby found to be incompetent thus be and is hereby struck out.
- 4.The costs of the Application and the suit to be borne by the Plaintiff/Respondent.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3A and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21; Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010; Section 28 of the Environment and Land Act, No. 19 of 2011; Article 159 of the Constitution
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.
That this Court finds that the instant suit has the elements of res judicata.
That the suit be and is hereby found to be incompetent thus be and is hereby struck out.
That the costs of the Application and the suit to be borne by the Plaintifi/Respondent.
Undoubtedly, the said Consent was adopted and hence making it a Consent Judgement of this Court.
The doctrine of res judicata is provided for under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21 with the object of baring multiplicity of suits and guarantee finality of litigation.
Issues in the judgment
#Disposition paragraph refers to 'balance of convenience' and preservation of the suit land, matters not raised in the application or framed as issues, appearing inconsistent with the striking-out disposition.
The judgment does not state its own case number, though the former suit is identified as Kwale CMELC No. E005 of 2023.
Costs provision is cited inconsistently: paragraph 13 attributes the costs provision to 'Section 27 (1) of the Civil Procedure Rules Cap. 21' while elsewhere it is cited as Section 27(1) of the Civil Procedure Act.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Maria v Repando (Environment and Land Case E006 of 2024) [2025] KEELC 5827 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5827/eng@2025-06-18
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.