Sang v Saina & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E017 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4775 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court struck out a land claim because the same family land dispute had already been finally settled in an earlier succession case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether this Court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the suit?
- 2.Whether this suit is Res Judicata?
- 3.Who bears the costs of the suit?
Key legal issues
#Jurisdiction of the ELC over claims seeking cancellation of titles registered out of a succession cause
The ELC has jurisdiction because the plaintiff primarily seeks declarations of fraudulent transfer and cancellation of titles, matters within section 13(2) of the ELC Act.
Section 13(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act mandates the Court to hear disputes relating to validity of titles. The plaintiff's prayers for cancellation of the transfer of Nandi/Kaptel/528 and resultant titles Nandi/Kaptel/1786 and 1787 directly implicate registered titles. The court approved Re Estate of Wachana, holding such reliefs fall within the ELC's constitutional and statutory mandate and not the Succession Court's limited jurisdiction. The jurisdictional limb of the objection therefore failed.
Whether the suit is res judicata given Eldoret HCP&A No. 35 of 1995
Yes. The former succession suit involved the same parties, the same property was distributed by a certificate of confirmation of grant, and it was heard and finally determined by a competent court.
Applying section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and the IEBC v Maina Kiai elements, the court found the former suit involved the same parties, concerned distribution of Nandi/Kaptel/528, was finally determined by a competent court, and resulted in a certificate of confirmation of grant issuing the property to the defendants. Adding the 3rd Defendant and framing the claim as cancellation of titles cannot evade res judicata, per KCB v Muiri Coffee Estate.
Sub judice arising from subsequently filed summons for revocation of grant
The plaintiff's Summons for Revocation of Grant dated 14th July 2026 in the former cause renders this suit sub judice and debars the court from entertaining it, even though sub judice was not a ground in the objection.
The plaintiff re-filed summons for revocation of grant in Eldoret HCP&A 35 of 1995 seeking to nullify consequential orders and title deeds. The court held that res judicata and sub judice share the same foundational requirements regarding identical parties and subject matter, and that having regard to the summons, the matter became sub judice. Relying on Odd Jobs v Mubia, the court held it could consider issues not expressly pleaded but deducible from the proceedings and submissions.
Legal principles established
#- Reliefs directly implicating the validity of registered titles fall within the jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court, not the Succession Court.
- Parties cannot evade res judicata by adding new parties or introducing a new cause of action to seek the same remedy as in the first suit.
- A court may consider issues not expressly pleaded but deducible from the pleadings, proceedings and submissions.
Court orders
#- 1.The defendants' preliminary objection dated 9th September 2025 is upheld.
- 2.The suit commenced by the Plaint dated 10th July 2025, is struck out.
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs.
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and Section 13(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#All prayers in the plaint (declarations of fraud, cancellation of entries and titles Nandi/Kaptel/1786 and 1787, reversion, injunction)
Suit struck out on preliminary objection; suit is res judicata vis-à-vis Eldoret HCP&A 35 of 1995 and has become sub judice upon the plaintiff filing summons for revocation of grant in the former cause.
Costs
Each party to bear their 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.
The defendants’ preliminary objection dated 9th September 2025 is upheld.
The suit commenced by the Plaint dated 10th July 2025, is struck out.
Each party to bear their own costs.
parties will not be permitted to evade the doctrine of res judicata by adding new parties or introducing a new cause of action so as to seek the same remedy as that sought in the first suit.
such reliefs fall within the constitutional and statutory jurisdiction and mandate of the Environment and Land Court, and not within the limited jurisdiction of the Succession Court.
Issues in the judgment
#Paragraph numbering in the judgment is irregular, with the number 16 repeated multiple times and 15 skipped after paragraph 14.
Section 13(2) of the Environment and Land Court Act is inconsistently cited with two years.
The preliminary objection references 'Section 7 of the Civil procedure Rules' whereas the judgment applies section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The grounds of the preliminary objection do not raise sub judice, yet the court struck out the suit partly on sub judice.
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sang v Saina & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E017 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4775 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in judgment (suit commenced by Plaint dated 10th July 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4775/eng@2026-07-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.