Sammy Likuyu Adema v Charles Shimwati Shisikani & another [2018] KEELC 676 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's High Court struck out a land dispute suit because the same parties had already litigated the same land, showing courts will not allow repeat cases.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the applicant was entitled to an interlocutory injunction
The application failed; no prima facie case justified the injunction and the suit itself was barred by res judicata
The court applied the Giella v Cassman Brown conditions and the Mrao Ltd definition of a prima facie case, noting the standard is higher than an arguable case. On perusing the file, the court found a prior suit, Kisumu High Court Civil Appeal No. 3 of 2014, between the same parties and over the same subject matter, decided on 9th December 2014. Sections 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act barred the present suit, rendering the application frivolous and vexatious and the suit res judicata.
Legal principles established
#- Conditions for granting an interlocutory injunction in East Africa
- Definition of a prima facie case
Court orders
#- 1.The Notice of Motion dated 3rd September 2018 is dismissed with no orders as to costs
- 2.The entire suit is found to be res judicata; the plaint and the counterclaim are struck out with no orders as to costs
- On appeal from
- null
- null
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Order 40 rules 1, 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010 and section 3A of the Civil Procedure Act
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sammy Likuyu Adema v Charles Shimwati Shisikani & another [2018] KEELC 676 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Not stated in the judgment. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/676/eng@2018-11-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.