Gatacha (Suing as a Lawful Attorney of Peter Njonjo Kibera & Agnes Wairimu Kibera Vide Special Power of Attorney Dated 11th October 2011) v Nairobi City County & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E610 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4396 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a land suit as res judicata because the Court of Appeal had already settled ownership of the property.
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 Plaintiff is entitled to orders of interlocutory injunction restraining the Defendants from the suit property
- 2.Whether the 1st Interested Party's Notice of Preliminary Objection is merited
Key legal issues
#Whether the Plaintiff established a prima facie case for an interlocutory injunction
No prima facie case was established since the Court of Appeal had upheld the finding that the 1st Interested Party owns the suit property
The plaintiff claimed through a Power of Attorney over Plot No. 239 Umoja Innercore Sector V Infill. Judicial notice was taken of the Court of Appeal judgment of 10th July 2026 in Civil Appeal No. 429 of 2019 upholding the ELC decision that the property belongs to the 1st Interested Party. On that basis alone the plaintiff could not demonstrate a prima facie case with a likelihood of success, and per Nguruman the court did not consider the remaining Giella limbs.
Whether the suit is barred by res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act
Yes. The suit is res judicata ELC Case No. 384 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No. 429 of 2019
The plaintiff's principals were parties to the prior suit and appeal; ownership of the same property was directly and substantially in issue and was decided by two competent courts in favour of the 1st Interested Party. The plaintiff, litigating under the same title via a Power of Attorney, merely added a claim for compensation; introducing new defendants could not escape the jurisdictional bar.
Whether the 1st Interested Party's preliminary objection was a true point of law
The court found the preliminary objection merited and struck out the Plaint
Applying Oraro v Mbaja, the court treated the res judicata objection as a pure point of law requiring no evidence, since the prior determinations by the ELC and the Court of Appeal conclusively disposed of the ownership question.
Legal principles established
#- Where a party fails to establish a prima facie case, the court need not consider the other two Giella limbs
- A matter already directly and substantially in issue between the same parties or those claiming under them, and heard and finally decided by a competent court, is res judicata
Court orders
#- 1.Dismissed the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion application dated 3rd December 2025
- 2.Struck out the Plaint
- 3.Awarded costs to the 1st and 2nd Defendants and the 1st Interested Party only
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; relief sought under the Civil Procedure Rules (temporary injunction)
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the Defendants from entering, alienating, occupying, excavating or constructing on Plot No. 239 Umoja Innercore Sector V Infill
The Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, ownership having been upheld in favour of the 1st Interested Party by the Court of Appeal
Continuation of the suit
The suit is res judicata Nairobi ELC Case No. 384 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No. 429 of 2019
Costs
Costs awarded to the 1st and 2nd Defendants including the 1st Interested Party only
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.
on this point alone, I find that the Plaintifi has not demonstrated a prima facie case to warrant the orders of interlocutory injunction as sought against the Defendants and Interested Parties
I find that this suit is indeed res judicata Nairobi ELC Case No. 384 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No. 429 of 2019
I however find the 1st Interested Party's Notice of Preliminary Objection merited and will proceed to strike out the Plaint and award costs to the 1st and 2nd Defendants including the 1st Interested Party only
Issues in the judgment
#Internal inconsistency in the year of the prior ELC suit - judgment alternately refers to ELC Case No. 384 of 2020 and ELC Case No. 384 of 2010
Internal chronology contradiction: judgment dated 20th June 2019 in a suit filed as No. 384 of 2020, and judicial notice taken of a Court of Appeal judgment of 10th July 2026 in a judgment dated 13th July 2026 while the application before court was dated November/December 2025 describing the appeal as pending
Inconsistent spelling of the Judge who decided the prior suit - 'Okong'o' and 'Okongo'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Gatacha (Suing as a Lawful Attorney of Peter Njonjo Kibera & Agnes Wairimu Kibera Vide Special Power of Attorney Dated 11th October 2011) v Nairobi City County & 4 others (Environment and Land Case E610 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4396 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 3rd December 2025 (Plaintiff's application). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4396/eng@2026-07-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.