Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedApplication dated 25th June 2025 (ELC suit, plaint dated 23rd February 2023)· [2026] KEELC 1298 (KLR)

Rajab v Abdalla & 6 others (Environment and Land Case E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1298 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
3 March 2026
MNMwangi Njoroge
508 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~2 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, through the supporting affidavit of advocate Richard Otara, sought to strike out the present suit with costs as res judicata or res sub judice, relying on Malindi ELC Case Number 11 of 2014, in which Naima Sulumu Abdun sued Bahati Mohamed, Hadija Mohamed, Rehema Mohamed and Mwinyi Mohamed over plot 4370/III/MN, claiming damages for trespass, vacant possession and demolition of structures. The present suit, instituted by Rishard Ramadhan Rajab as director of Andalus Limited (the registered owner per a search certificate), seeks a permanent injunction restraining interference with two portions of land including CR36763, Subdivision Number 4370/III/MN. The court set out the three conditions for res judicata: the matter directly and substantially in issue in a former suit; the same parties or parties under whom they claim; and a final decision by a competent court. Comparing the plaints, the court found no common parties: each plaintiff and each defendant sued independently, with no party professing to sue on behalf of anyone joined in the other suit. The only link was that the same parcel, 4370/III/MN, is mentioned in both suits, with different plaintiffs claiming some interest in it. The doctrines of res judicata and res sub judice therefore could not apply. The application dated 25th June 2025 was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit is barred as res judicata or res sub judice by Malindi ELC Case Number 11 of 2014

Holding

The application fails because the two suits share no common parties; identity of subject land alone does not trigger the doctrines

Reasoning

The court set out the three conditions for res judicata: the matter directly and substantially in issue in a former suit, the same parties or parties under whom they claim, and final decision by a competent court. Comparing the plaints, the plaintiff in ELC 11 of 2014 (Naima Sulumu Abdun) and the present plaintiff (Rishard Ramadhan Rajab for Andalus Limited) are different and independent, as are the defendants. The only common feature is parcel 4370/III/MN. Absent common parties, neither doctrine applies and the striking-out application lacks merit.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Res judicata requires that the matter be directly and substantially in issue in a former suit, between the same parties or those under whom they claim, heard and finally decided by a competent court
  • Two suits concerning the same parcel of land but with entirely different parties are not res judicata or sub judice

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 25th June 2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
Jurisdiction invoked
Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the ELC Act over land disputes; application under civil procedure rules for striking out

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Rajab v Abdalla & 6 others (Environment and Land Case E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1298 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Application dated 25th June 2025 (ELC suit, plaint dated 23rd February 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1298/eng@2026-03-03

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.