Njoroge & 2 others (Suing as the Trustees of PCEA Thindigua Church) v Thuo (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E159 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 7765 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a duplicate land suit as an abuse of process and refused to add new parties who had no independent stake.
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 Notice of Motion dated 22/10/2024 seeking stay of proceedings is merited
- 2.Whether the Notice of Motion dated 23/10/2024 seeking joinder of the Intended Interested Parties as Defendants is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit should be stayed under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act (res sub-judice)
The suit was res sub-judice and an abuse of process, as it concerned the same property and parties as the concluded ELC Milimani No. 93 of 2015; rather than being stayed, the suit was dismissed altogether
The court found two suits involving the same subject matter and parties; the 2015 suit was concluded and is on appeal, with a Court of Appeal stay of execution in place, meaning the eviction sought in this suit was effectively stayed. The sub-judice doctrine prevents parallel litigation, forum shopping and conflicting orders. Consequently the stay application succeeded only in part - the suit was dismissed instead of stood over generally.
Whether the six Intended Interested Parties should be joined as Defendants under Order 1 Rule 10(2)
Joinder was refused; there is no room for joinder in a suit that is itself res sub-judice, and the applicants sought only locus standi to challenge a concluded judgment now on appeal
Applying the Muruatetu/Ndii principles, the intended interested parties did not demonstrate a proximate stake distinct from the Defendant's; their stated aim was to acquire locus standi to challenge the 2015 judgment via the existing appeal, which is not a matter pending before this Court. As beneficiaries and adult children of the Defendant they cannot claim adverse possession separately, and their delayed interest suggested opportunism.
Legal principles established
#- For res sub-judice to apply there must be more than one suit over the same subject matter, one instituted before the other, both pending before competent courts, and between the same parties or their representatives
- Joinder of an interested party is discretionary and must be exercised judicially; the applicant must show a proximate identifiable stake, prejudice from non-joinder, and the case they intend to make
- An interested party cannot introduce altogether new issues or causes of action not pleaded by the primary parties
- Beneficiaries of suit property who are adult children of a defendant cannot claim adverse possession separate from the defendant's claim
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 22/10/2024 succeeds in part; the instant suit is not stayed generally but dismissed altogether
- 2.The Notice of Motion dated 23/10/2024 is unmerited
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 1A, 1B, 3, 3A and 6 of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 50 Rule 1 and Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules; Article 159(2)(d) of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010
Relief refused
#Stay of proceedings generally pending hearing of the eviction application in ELC No. 93 of 2015 (Milimani)
The Court held the suit itself was res sub-judice and an abuse of process, so instead of staying it, the Court dismissed it
Joinder of the six Intended Interested Parties as Defendants
The suit is res sub-judice; the Intended Interested Parties sought locus standi to challenge a concluded judgment on appeal, and cannot claim adverse possession separate from the Defendant's claim
Standing over the suit generally
The Environment and Land Court no longer stays matters ad finitum; the suit should have been dismissed for being res sub-judice
Costs
Each party to bear their own 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.
The Notice of Motion dated 22/10/2024 succeeds in part, the instant suit is not stayed generally but dismissed altogether.
The Notice of Motion dated 23/10/2024 is unmerited.
Each party to bear their own costs.
I am not convinced that there is room for joinder in the present suit which in itself is res subjudice. In the circumstances, the prayer for joinder must fail.
Parties are not supposed to litigate by instalments and further that they should not be allowed to forum shop for Courts.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistencies in application dates - the ruling opens on applications dated 22/10/2024 and 23/10/2024, but the analysis refers to 'the Application dated 23/10/2025' and 'the Notice of Motion dated 22/10/2025'
Inconsistent suit number references - ELC Milimani No. 93 of 2015 is also referred to as 'ELC Milimani 093 of 2023' and 'ELC Milimani 093 of 2015'
Typographical reference to an 'Ex parte Application dated 16/01/2024' alongside one dated 15/11/2021, the chronology of which is unclear
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njoroge & 2 others (Suing as the Trustees of PCEA Thindigua Church) v Thuo (Environment and Land Case Civil Suit E159 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 7765 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC E159 of 2022. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7765/eng@2025-11-11
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.