Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCPartially Allowednull (case number not printed in the judgment)· [2016] KEELC 873 (KLR)

Agnes Awinja Okongo v K-Rep Bank Ltd [2016] KEELC 873 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
25 May 2016
1,406 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~6 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a repeat injunction application as an abuse of process, but stayed rather than dismissed the main suit.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
Agnes Awinja Okongo, the Plaintiff, sued K-Rep Bank Ltd, the Defendant, by plaint dated 9th February 2016 seeking taking of accounts and a permanent injunction restraining the bank from selling charged property Kisumu/Pandpieri/1032, and filed a contemporaneous notice of motion for a temporary injunction. The Defendant filed a preliminary objection dated 16th February 2016 contending that the application and suit were res judicata, having been determined in Kisumu CMCC No.452 of 2009, Kisumu ELC No.294 of 2013 and Kisumu HCCA No.138 of 2010, all between the same parties. The court heard rival written submissions. It held that Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act embodies res judicata, but that the 2009 magistrates' court matter and its 2010 appeal were not decided on the merit - the magistrate had declined jurisdiction under Section 159 of the then Registered Land Act - so they did not bar the suit. However, the prayers in the 2016 notice of motion were substantially similar to those dismissed in the unchallenged ruling of 10th December 2015 in Kisumu ELC No.294 of 2013 between the same parties, so the application offended Section 7 and was struck out with costs. The main suit was not res judicata because the prior main suit remained pending; it was stayed under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act pending determination of Kisumu ELC No.294 of 2013. The status quo order of 17th February 2016 was vacated.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the notice of motion dated 9th February 2016 is res judicata

Holding

Yes - it seeks orders similar to those in a notice of motion dated 23rd October 2013 dismissed on 10th December 2015 in Kisumu ELC No.294 of 2013 between the same parties in the same capacities

Reasoning

Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act embodies the doctrine of res judicata. The earlier application between the same parties was dismissed by a ruling of 10th December 2015 which remains unchallenged on appeal or review. Re-litigating the same reliefs offends Section 7 and constitutes an abuse of process, so the preliminary objection was upheld and the application struck out.

p. 2
02

Whether the dismissal of Kisumu CMCC No.452 of 2009 and Kisumu HCCA No.138 of 2010 rendered the suit res judicata

Holding

No - those matters were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and on appeal, not on the merit

Reasoning

The Magistrate in CMCC No.452 of 2009 declined jurisdiction under Section 159 of the then Registered Land Act and the ensuing appeal was dismissed. Since the issues were not decided on merit, those decisions do not create res judicata, consistent with Lilian Njeri Muranja & another v Virginia Nyambura & another (2014) eKLR.

p. 2
03

Whether the main suit is res judicata or should be stayed

Holding

The main suit is not res judicata because the main suit in Kisumu ELC No.294 of 2013 is still pending; it should be stayed under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act

Reasoning

The Defendant did not avail proof that the main suit in Kisumu ELC No.294 of 2013 had been finally determined. Absent a final decision, res judicata under Section 7 is not established. However, since the issues in the two suits must be similar, the present suit must await the outcome of the earlier suit under Section 6.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A decision dismissing an application for lack of jurisdiction is not a decision on the merit and does not found res judicata
  • Issues decided in an unchallenged ruling between the same parties in the same capacities cannot be raised again in a fresh application, which offends Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act
  • Where a prior suit between the same parties remains pending and undetermined, a later similar suit should be stayed under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act rather than dismissed as res judicata

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Defendant's preliminary objection in respect of the notice of motion dated 9th February 2016 is upheld and the application is struck out with costs
  2. 2.The status quo order issued on 17th February 2016 is vacated
  3. 3.The main suit is stayed in terms of Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act pending the hearing and determination of Kisumu ELC No.294 of 2013

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 7
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 6
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B and 3A
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rules 1 and 2
  • Registered Land Act (repealed)Section 159

Cases cited (1)

  • Lilian Njeri Muranja & another -V- Virginia Nyambura & another
    {2014} eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; Civil Procedure Act (Sections 6 and 7)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Agnes Awinja Okongo v K-Rep Bank Ltd [2016] KEELC 873 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2016). null (case number not printed in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2016/873/eng@2016-05-25

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