Nyoe & 36 others v Black Trap Products Limited (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 168 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court struck out squatters' land claim as a repeat case, ruling that adding new parties cannot revive an already-decided dispute.
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 is res judicata.
- 2.Whether the plaintiff has met the threshold to warrant the grant of injunctive relief.
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit is res judicata given the prior Machakos ELC Case No. E087 of 2021 between the respondent and Mavoko Land Development Company
The suit is res judicata. The parties or persons claiming under the same title are the same (Explanation 6 to Section 7 deeming the applicants to claim under Development Co.), the subject matter is the identical property, and the claim (adverse possession) is the same.
The court examined the pleadings and judgment in the previous case, which the respondent won against Development Co. over the same parcel. In that case Development Co. pleaded that the occupants were 'its squatters' claiming adverse possession; the applicants here derive their claim from Development Co. and assert adverse possession over the same land. Under Explanation 6 of Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act they are deemed to claim under those who litigated the same right, so their absence from the prior case cannot save the present suit.
Whether the applicants met the threshold for injunctive relief
Not determined; the finding of res judicata rendered this issue unnecessary.
Having found that the entire suit is res judicata and an abuse of court process, the court struck out the suit and did not proceed to evaluate whether the applicants satisfied the tests for an interlocutory injunction. The motion dated 18th February 2025 was therefore decided on the res judicata finding alone, with costs awarded to the respondent.
Legal principles established
#- Where persons claim in common through a party who litigated over the same public or private right, all persons interested in that right are deemed to claim under the litigating party for purposes of res judicata, so adding new parties cannot defeat the doctrine.
- A suit brought solely to circumvent enforcement of a judgment in a prior case constitutes an abuse of the judicial process.
Court orders
#- 1.The suit is struck out as res judicata and an abuse of court process.
- 2.The respondent is awarded costs of the notice of motion dated 18th February 2025 and of the entire suit.
- 3.The file is marked as closed.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Articles 140 and 159(2) of the Constitution of Kenya, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) and Order 40 rules 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
Relief refused
#Injunction restraining eviction, demolition and dealing with LR. No. 11895/12 (IR. 55345) pending hearing of the Originating Summons
The suit itself was found res judicata and an abuse of process, rendering the injunctive relief question unnecessary.
Costs
The respondent shall be awarded costs for the notice of motion dated 18th February 2025 and of the entire suit.
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.
Accordingly, this court finds that the present Suit Is res judicata and represents an abuse of court process. This finding renders a determination of issue (b) unnecessary. Ultimately, this court strikes out the suit, and as is well-established law, costs follow the event; the respondent shall be awarded costs for the notice of motion dated 18th February 2025 and of the entire suit. This file is hereby marked as closed.
The applicants have now brought new parties into this suit to circumvent enforcement, which this court will not permit, as it would constitute an abuse of the judicial process.
where persons litigate bona fide in respect of a public right or of a private right claimed in common for themselves and others, all persons interested in such right shall, for the purposes of this section, be deemed to claim under the persons so litigating.
the mere addition of parties in a subsequent suit does not necessarily render the doctrine of res judicata inapplicable since a party cannot escape the said doctrine by simply undertaking a cosmetic surgery to his pleadings.
Issues in the judgment
#Judgment text contains apparent typographical/OCR errors, e.g. 'plaintifi' for 'plaintiff' and 'efiect'/'eficacy'; quotes in this brief reproduce them character-for-character.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Nyoe & 36 others v Black Trap Products Limited (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E005 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 168 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Originating Summons, Machakos ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/168/eng@2026-01-27
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.