Kweyu v Chore & another (Environment and Land Case 4 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 7304 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court refused to let a new law firm take over a case because the same request had already been made and rejected — repeating it cost the defendant money.
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 applicant deserves the orders sought, i.e. leave for the firm of Kasamani & Associates Advocates to come on record for the 1st defendant in place of Oscar Wachilonga & Associates Advocates
Key legal issues
#Whether the notice of motion dated 21st July 2025 was barred by res judicata
Yes; the application was res judicata and an abuse of the court process because it repeated an identical application dismissed on 30th June 2025
The court noted that on 7th October 2024 the applicant had filed a similar application seeking the same prayer, predicated on the same provisions and grounds, which was dismissed on 30th June 2025. Applying Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court held that having already pronounced itself on the identical issue between the same parties, the fresh application was barred and constituted an abuse of process, warranting dismissal with costs.
Legal principles established
#- Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act bars a court from re-trying an issue already determined with finality on the merits between the same parties or their privies (res judicata), including interlocutory applications
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 21st July 2025 was dismissed
- 2.Costs to the plaintiff/respondent
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 9 rule 9 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Leave for Kasamani & Associates Advocates to come on record for the 1st defendant in place of Oscar Wachilonga & Associates Advocates
The application was res judicata, being a repeat of an identical application dismissed on 30th June 2025, and an abuse of the court process
Costs
Dismissed with costs to 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.
As this court has already pronounced itself on a similar application, I hold that the application herein is res judicata and an abuse of the court process.
Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act bars this court from trying an issue or suit which is already determined by a competent court with finality and on merit in a former suit or proceedings involving the same parties or their privies.
Therefore, the application dated 21st July 2025 is hereby dismissed with costs to the plaintifi/respondent.
Issues in the judgment
#The application is said to invoke 'Article 15 a (2) (d) of the Constitution (sic)', which the court itself flags with '(sic)' as an apparently erroneous provision; no constitutional provision appears to be at issue
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kweyu v Chore & another (Environment and Land Case 4 of 2019) [2025] KEELC 7304 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7304/eng@2025-10-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.