Electrical Marketing (Wholesale) Limited & another v Nairobi City County & 5 others (Environment and Land Petition 21 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 144 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a landowner's constitutional petition because the same disputes over a rates auction sale had already been decided in a prior appeal.
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 petition is res judicata
- 2.Whether the petition has merit / whether the petitioners are entitled to the orders sought
- 3.Whether the 1st respondent acted fraudulently
- 4.Whether the 1st respondent should pay costs of the petition
Key legal issues
#Whether the petition is res judicata in light of the prior judgment in ELC Appeal No. 22 of 2017
The petition is res judicata because the same facts and issues were heard and determined in the prior appeal between the parties
The court noted that much of what was discussed in the ELC Appeal No. 22 of 2017 judgment was replicated in the petition, which was filed simultaneously with the appeal. Determining the declaratory and damages prayers would require assessing the pleadings and documents, an exercise already undertaken by the court. Re-litigating the same dissatisfaction with the sale of the suit property would waste judicial time; the prior judgment had sufficiently addressed the grievances.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to the orders sought
They are not; the petition is without merit and is dismissed
Having found the petition res judicata, the court could not grant the declarations and damages sought. Prayers for certiorari had been rendered moot by the prior appeal judgment which set aside the sale and all consequential orders. The petition dated 13th June 2017 was therefore dismissed with each party bearing its own costs.
Legal principles established
#- A petition whose facts and issues have already been heard and determined in prior proceedings between the same parties is res judicata
- He who alleges fraud must prove it with utmost strictness and particularity (submitted by the 1st respondent, cited by party)
Court orders
#- 1.The petition dated 13th June, 2017 is dismissed
- 2.Each party to bear its own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 10, 40, 31, 27, 28, 50 and 159 of the Constitution; petition alleging constitutional violations
Relief refused
#All declaratory and damages reliefs sought in the petition (prayers 1, 2, 6, 7 and 8)
The petition is res judicata, having been sufficiently addressed in the judgment in ELC Appeal No. 22 of 2017 delivered on 15th July, 2019
Prayers 3, 4 and 5 (certiorari to quash the CMCC proceedings, the vesting order and the registration of the 4th and 5th respondents as proprietors)
Rendered moot by the ruling in Milimani ELC Civil Appeal No. 22 of 2017 setting aside the sale
Costs
Each party to bear its 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.
Precisely, I am of the view, that the instant petition is res judicata by virtue of the judgment delivered by the court in ELC Appeal No. 22 of 2017 on 15th July, 2019. As such, the petition dated 13th June, 2017 is without merit, and it is hereby dismissed. Each party to bear its own costs.
The petitioners’ dissatisfaction with the manner in which the suit property was dealt with has been suficiently addressed in the said judgment, and there would be no need to rewrite similar findings as that would be a waste of the court’s precious time.
it is my finding that the facts in this case are similar to the facts and issues raised in appeal no. 22 of 2017 which was heard and determined.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment date of 26th January 2026 postdates the last filings dated 29th April 2025 by about nine months; also the petition is described as dated both 13th and 16th June 2017 in different paragraphs
Internal inconsistency in the record: the replying affidavit refers to 'CMCC No. 3 of 2001' while the petition and preliminary objection refer to CMCC No. 3 of 2011
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Electrical Marketing (Wholesale) Limited & another v Nairobi City County & 5 others (Environment and Land Petition 21 of 2017) [2026] KEELC 144 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Petition dated 13th June, 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/144/eng@2026-01-26
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.