Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedBungoma ELC Case (suit filed 18/8/2017)· [2018] KEELC 3873 (KLR)

Attorney General v Ashon Sikolia Wanyonyi & another [2018] KEELC 3873 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
28 March 2018
841 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a government land suit because the same dispute had already been decided, ruling the parcel never existed on the ground.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Attorney General sued on 18/8/2017 as registered owner (since 1/4/1998) of parcel Webuye Municipality/141, claiming that the defendants on 30/6/2017 unlawfully demolished structures on the parcel. He sought a declaration of ownership, compensation for destroyed properties, eviction of the defendants, and a permanent injunction against trespass. The defendants, through J.W. Sichangi & Co., filed a preliminary objection invoking Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21, contending the suit was res judicata having regard to Bungoma HCCC 100 of 1998, Bungoma CMCC No. 110 of 2011 and Bungoma ELC Case 59 of 2014. The court traced the litigation history of the land originally adjudicated as Ndivisi/Muchi/1401, acquired from Reuben Wanyonyi and erroneously registered in the name of Bungoma County Council. By an order of 23/11/2006 in PMCC 452 of 2006 the land was ordered registered in the defendants' names. The defendants thereafter evicted Webuye Jua Kali Association occupants from Ndivisi/Muchi/6920 pursuant to the court's order of 29/11/2016 in ELC 59 of 2014 - the very eviction the plaintiff now complains of. The court found that Webuye Municipality/141 was allotted to the Association on 1/4/1998 through a mistake over land already returned to its owners, and that the parcel does not exist on the ground. Sustaining the preliminary objection, the court dismissed the suit as res judicata with costs to the defendants.

Key legal issues

#
01

Res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act

Holding

The suit is barred in its entirety because the same issues were previously canvassed between the parties in Bungoma HCCC 100 of 1998, Bungoma CMCC No. 110 of 2011 and Bungoma ELC Case 59 of 2014

Reasoning

The court traced the litigation history over the land originally adjudicated as Ndivisi/Muchi/1401, acquired from Reuben Wanyonyi and registered in the Bungoma County Council's name. Through prior suits the land was ordered returned to the defendants, and the eviction of the Webuye Jua Kali occupants pursuant to ELC 59 of 2014 was the very eviction now complained of. The same issues had therefore been canvassed, and parcel Webuye Municipality/141 was found to be a mistaken allocation inside Ndivisi/Muchi/6920.

p. 2
02

Existence and ownership of parcel Webuye Municipality/141

Holding

The parcel does not exist on the ground and was allocated through a mistake, being located inside Ndivisi/Muchi/6920 which had been returned to the defendants

Reasoning

The court found that Webuye Jua Kali Association was allotted parcel Webuye Municipality/141 on 1/4/1998 by the County Council of Bungoma even after the Council had surrendered the land to the defendants pursuant to a court order of 23/11/2006 registering Ndivisi/Muchi/1401 in their names. The allocation was therefore made in error over land already restored to its owners.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A suit whose subject matter has already been canvassed between the parties in prior suits is barred by res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and is dismissed on a preliminary objection

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The preliminary objection on res judicata is sustained
  2. 2.The suit is dismissed as res judicata
  3. 3.Costs of the suit awarded to the defendants
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2)(b) of the Constitution (as the court seized of the land dispute); no specific provision cited in the judgment

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Attorney General v Ashon Sikolia Wanyonyi & another [2018] KEELC 3873 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2018). Bungoma ELC Case (suit filed 18/8/2017). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2018/3873/eng@2018-03-28

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