Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutELC Case No. 138 of 2018· [2018] KEELC 917 (KLR)

Lucas Odonya & 72 others v Kenya Railways Retirement Benefits Scheme & 2 others [2018] KEELC 917 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
18 October 2018
EOE. O. Obaga
1,608 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 retirees' suit over the Ngara Railway Estate because the same dispute had already been decided.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The plaintiffs, 74 former employees of Kenya Railways Corporation and tenants in Ngara Railway Estate, sued the Kenya Railways Retirement Benefits Scheme, its trustees Corporate & Pension Trust Services Limited, and the Corporation. They sought a permanent injunction restraining eviction from LR No. 209/19382 Kenya Railways Ngara Estate, damages for harassment, violation of constitutional rights and trespass, plus costs and interest. Together with the suit they filed a notice of motion seeking interim injunctive relief. The first respondent raised a preliminary objection contending that the suit was res judicata, having regard to the judgment of Justice Mwita delivered on 28th February 2018 in Petition No. 468 of 2016 in which the same applicants, led by the same first applicant, sought to stop the sale of the same property; that the suit was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process; that the court lacked jurisdiction; and that the matter was sub judice on appeal. The first respondent explained that, to comply with the requirement that a pension scheme hold no more than 30% immovable assets, it had commenced a bidding process to dispose of part of the estate to pay members. The court applied Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and Okiya Omtata v Communications Authority of Kenya, holding that the claim, though re-cast as a landlord-tenant dispute, sought to relitigate the already-decided sale issue. The court upheld res judicata and abuse of process, struck out the application and the entire suit, and awarded costs to the respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit is res judicata

Holding

The suit is res judicata because the core issue - the proposed sale of LR No. 209/19382 - was exhaustively dealt with and decided in Petition No. 468 of 2016 between substantially the same parties litigating over the same property

Reasoning

The first applicant led both the petition and this suit; the respondents are the same; the 74 plaintiffs are all members of the first respondent litigating over the same property. The petition sought injunctive reliefs stopping the sale of LR No. 209/19382, which was dismissed with a finding that the first respondent was at liberty to sell. Filing the same claim as a landlord-tenant dispute does not evade Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.

p. 2
02

Whether the suit is an abuse of the process of the court

Holding

The suit is an abuse of process because it is being used to oppress the first respondent and suppress its operations after the applicants lost the petition

Reasoning

Citing Bullen, Leake and Jacob's Precedents of Pleadings, the court held that court process must be carried out properly, honestly and in good faith, and that the court will prevent its machinery from being used as a means of vexation or oppression. The applicants' litigation was aimed at stopping the sale of the suit property which had already been judicially sanctioned.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A suit is res judicata where the matter directly and substantially in issue was directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties litigating under the same title, before a competent court, and was heard and finally decided
  • Framing a decided claim in a different form, such as a landlord-tenant dispute, does not evade res judicata where the core subject matter was already adjudicated
  • The court will not allow its process to be misused as a means of vexation or oppression in litigation

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicants' application as well as the entire suit struck out
  2. 2.Costs awarded to the respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 7

Cases cited (2)

  • Lucas Odonya & 4 Others v Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme & 2 Others
    Petition No. 468 of 2016
  • Okiya Omtata v Communications Authority of Kenya
    Nairobi High Court Petition No. 59 of 2015
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court jurisdiction over landlord-tenant and land disputes

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Later judgments citing this (1)

#

Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Lucas Odonya & 72 others v Kenya Railways Retirement Benefits Scheme & 2 others [2018] KEELC 917 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). ELC Case No. 138 of 2018. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/917/eng@2018-10-18

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