Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedOriginating Summons dated 4th December 2017 (Bungoma ELC)· [2019] KEELC 1507 (KLR)

John Barasa Matifari v Simon Wanjala Mabonga [2019] KEELC 1507 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
9 October 2019
953 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~4 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court ruled a landowner could pursue an adverse possession claim even after losing an earlier case over the same land.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This is a ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Bungoma (Olao J) on the defendant's Preliminary Objection dated 18th July 2018 in an Originating Summons filed by the plaintiff on 4th December 2017 claiming 9 acres by adverse possession of parcels East Bukusu/South Nalondo/2802, 2861 and 2863. The defendant, who had successfully sued the plaintiff in Bungoma CMCC No. 5 of 2005 for delivery of the suit land (judgment delivered 25th July 2018 by Hon. S. O. Mogute, PM, after the plaintiff's appeal was dismissed by Mukunya J for want of prosecution), objected that the plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 11th May 2018 seeking transfer and consolidation of the subordinate court suit was sub-judice, an abuse of process, and that the court lacked jurisdiction. The court held that the Notice of Motion had been overtaken by events since judgment had already been delivered in the subordinate court suit, which therefore could not be stayed or consolidated. The Preliminary Objection, being founded entirely on that moribund application, had no basis. On jurisdiction and res judicata, the court held that the adverse possession issue pleaded in the present suit was not and could not have been determined by the subordinate court, which lacked jurisdiction over such claims, so res judicata did not apply. The Preliminary Objection was dismissed with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Preliminary Objection was competent given that the Notice of Motion it targeted had been overtaken by events

Holding

The Preliminary Objection was struck out as it had no foundation; the application it attacked was moot since judgment had been delivered in Bungoma CMCC No. 5 of 2005

Reasoning

The Preliminary Objection was founded entirely on the plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 11th May 2018, which sought transfer and consolidation of the subordinate court suit. That suit had already proceeded to judgment on 25th July 2018 and thus no longer existed for purposes of trial or consolidation. With the application overtaken by events, the objection had no basis and could only be struck out.

p. 2
02

Whether the suit is res judicata and an abuse of court process

Holding

Res judicata does not apply because the adverse possession claim could not have been determined by the subordinate court in the earlier suit

Reasoning

Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and case law on res judicata were cited by the defendant's counsel. However, the issue of adverse possession pleaded in the Originating Summons was neither pleaded nor determinable in Bungoma CMCC No. 5 of 2005, as the subordinate court lacked jurisdiction over adverse possession claims. Had the earlier suit been in the High Court, a res judicata plea would have been well founded.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • A party may file a fresh suit to determine an issue which was not, and could not have been, determined in previous litigation between the parties
  • Res judicata cannot be invoked where the issue pleaded in the later suit (adverse possession) was beyond the jurisdiction of the court that determined the earlier suit

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The defendant's Preliminary Objection dated 18th July 2018 is dismissed with costs

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 7
Jurisdiction invoked
Environment and Land Court jurisdiction (the suit is an Originating Summons for adverse possession; no specific provision quoted)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "John Barasa Matifari v Simon Wanjala Mabonga [2019] KEELC 1507 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Originating Summons dated 4th December 2017 (Bungoma ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/1507/eng@2019-10-09

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