Ndungu v Kariuki & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E022 of 2026) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 3368 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a land dispute suit because the same family land issue had already been fully decided, warning against re-filing old grievances.
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 current suit is res judicata, ELCLC No. E054 of 2025, Nairobi HCSC No. 1638 of 1993 and Court of Appeal Civil Suit No. 305 of 2018
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit is res judicata in light of the prior ELC ruling in ELCLC No. E054 of 2025, the succession cause and the Court of Appeal judgment
The suit is res judicata; the ownership, distribution fractions and title validity of Plots 303, 304, 311 and 312 were conclusively determined by the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 305 of 2018, certified in the amended Grant of 8th November 2021, and confirmed by the prior ruling in ELCLC No. E054 of 2025.
Applying the conjunctive elements of res judicata from Dina Management Limited, the court found the parties identical, litigating under the same title as beneficiary/administratrix of the estate of Simon Ndungu Kihonge, the subject parcels identical, and the ownership issue finalized by a competent court. The alleged new cause of action (fraudulent registration) was in fact the lawful implementation of the amended grant, so no fresh cause of action arose. The suit was forum shopping.
Whether the Applicant's claim of a fresh cause of action (irregular registration without consent) escaped res judicata
It did not; the registration of the 1st to 4th Respondents on Plots 304, 311 and 312 was the direct, lawful execution of the Amended Confirmation of Grant dated 8th November 2021 and thus not a fresh fraud.
The Respondents took their 2.4-acre allocations out of those blocks pursuant to the Court of Appeal orders, leaving the Applicant her 2.4-acre share on Plot 303. A party cannot claim a fresh cause of action merely because the opposing party has implemented a prior, valid court decree. Filing a new suit to seek injunctions over Plot 304 was classic forum shopping to re-litigate an adverse outcome.
Legal principles established
#- The doctrine of res judicata is a matter of substantive law and jurisdiction, not a mere technicality curable under Article 159(1)(d) of the Constitution
- A party cannot claim a fresh cause of action merely because the opposing party has implemented a prior, valid court decree
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st to 4th Respondents' Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 8th April 2026 is allowed
- 2.The Plaintiff/Applicant's Chamber Summons Application for a temporary injunction and the main Plaint dated 1st April 2026 are struck out in limine for being res judicata and a gross abuse of the judicial process
- 3.Costs are awarded to the 1st to 4th Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution of Kenya and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act (invoked by the Applicant); objected to under Section 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and Order 2 Rule 15 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the 1st to 4th Defendants from selling, transferring, charging, leasing, developing, sub-dividing or dealing with Plot No. 304
The application and the entire suit were struck out as res judicata and an abuse of process; the ownership of Plots 303, 304, 311 and 312 had been conclusively determined by the Court of Appeal and prior rulings
Costs
Costs are awarded to the 1st to 4th Respondents.
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 Plaintifi/Applicant's Chamber Summons Application for a temporary injunction and the main Plaint dated 1st April 2026 are hereby struck out in limine for being res judicata and a gross abuse of the judicial process.
I thus find that the prior ruling in ELCLC No. E054 of 2025 acts as a complete and impenetrable bar to the current suit.
The ownership, distribution fractions, and title validity of Plots 303, 304, 311, and 312 are legally dead issues (functus oficio).
By trying to file a new suit and seeking temporary injunctions over Plot 304, the Applicant, I find, is engaging in classic forum shopping to re-litigate an adverse outcome under a slightly altered legal narrative
The elements to be proven before a court could arrive at the conclusion that a matter was res judicata were to be conjunctive rather than disjunctive before a suit or an issue was to be deemed res judicata on account of a former suit.
Issues in the judgment
#The Supporting Affidavit is dated 1st April 2026 while the application it supports is dated 12th February 2025, an unexplained inconsistency in dates
The Court of Appeal decision is referred to inconsistently as 'Civil Appeal No. 305 of 2018' and 'Court of Appeal Civil Suit No. 305 of 2018'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ndungu v Kariuki & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E022 of 2026) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 3368 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (Ruling on Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 8th April 2026). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3368/eng@2026-06-04
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.