Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutCase No 393 of 2017· [2019] KEELC 3517 (KLR)

Reuben Cheserem Simotwo v Frank Kibet Andere [2019] KEELC 3517 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 April 2019
2,450 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a landowner's suit because the same land dispute had already been decided in a 1978 case he lost.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by D. O. Ohungo J of the Environment and Land Court at Nakuru, delivered on 30 April 2019, disposed of the plaintiff's Notice of Motion dated 12 October 2017 seeking an interlocutory injunction to restrain the defendant from trespassing on LR No. Baringo/Perkerra/l01/162, and the defendant's Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 6 March 2018, heard together. The plaintiff claimed he was allocated the land in 1965 and held a title dated 12 October 2000. The defendant contended the plaintiff had sold the property (formerly plot 599 Perkerra Settlement Scheme) to the defendant's mother, Sylvia Andere (deceased), in 1974, and that ownership had been confirmed in HCCC No. 145 of 1977 (Nakuru). The preliminary objection raised res judicata, limitation and unjust enrichment. The court applied Mukisa Biscuit on the nature of preliminary objections and Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act on res judicata. It held the issues of sale and ownership had been directly and substantially determined in the 1977 suit, in which the plaintiff testified and was represented; the defendant, as the deceased's son holding letters of administration ad litem, litigated under the same title within Explanation 6 to Section 7. The suit was therefore res judicata and was struck out. The court further held, in the alternative, that the plaintiff had no prima facie case given serious questions over his title and the admitted sale agreement, invoking Nguruman. The defendant was left free to prosecute his counterclaim. Costs of the preliminary objection went to the defendant; costs of the suit abide the counterclaim's outcome. Grounds (b) and (c) of the objection were not considered.

Key legal issues

#
01

Res judicata

Holding

The suit is res judicata; the preliminary objection succeeds on ground (a).

Reasoning

The issues of sale and ownership of the suit property were determined in HCCC No. 145 of 1977 where the plaintiff testified and was represented by counsel. The defendant, as the deceased's son holding letters of administration ad litem, litigates under the same title, satisfying Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act. Complaints of unfair hearing in the prior suit cannot be raised collaterally in the present suit.

p. 3
02

Interlocutory injunction

Holding

Even absent the objection, the application would fail for want of a prima facie case.

Reasoning

Serious questions were raised about the plaintiff's title, particularly the admitted 1974 sale agreement to the deceased. Where serious questions are raised on title, the plaintiff fails the first Nguruman test and the court need not inquire into the other tests for an interlocutory injunction.

p. 3
03

Limitation

Holding

Not determined.

Reasoning

Having struck out the suit on res judicata, the court found it unnecessary to consider grounds (b) and (c) of the preliminary objection, including the limitation argument under Section 4 of the Limitation of Actions Act.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A valid preliminary objection must be on a pure point of law
  • Elements of res judicata: prior suit, same parties or parties claiming under the same title, competent court, final determination
  • Explanation 6 of Section 7 Civil Procedure Act deems persons interested in a right litigated by others to claim under them

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The plaintiff's suit is struck out
  2. 2.The defendant is at liberty to set down his counterclaim for hearing
  3. 3.Costs of the preliminary objection awarded to the defendant; costs of the suit to abide the outcome of the pending counterclaim

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Limitation of Actions ActSection 4
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 7 (including Explanation 6)

Cases cited (4)

  • Mukisa Biscuit Manufacturing Co. Ltd vs West End Distributors Ltd
    (1969) EA 696
  • John Florence Maritime Services Limited & another v Cabinet Secretary for Transport and Infrastructure & 3 others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Nguruman Limited v Jan Bonde Nielsen & 2 Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Sylvia Andere v Reuben Cheserem Simatwa
    HCCC No. 145 of 1977 (Nakuru)
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over land disputes

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Reuben Cheserem Simotwo v Frank Kibet Andere [2019] KEELC 3517 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Case No 393 of 2017. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/3517/eng@2019-04-30

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