Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedMiscellaneous Application dated 19/10/2018 (Kitale)· [2019] KEELC 4227 (KLR)

Tolelinyang Lomongoni v Chemoru Tolelinyang (Environment & Land Case 15 of 2018) [2019] KEELC 4227 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
21 March 2019
1,549 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

#

A Kenyan landowner's second attempt to get land surveyed was dismissed because the same dispute had already been decided between the same parties.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant, Tolelinya Lomongoni, filed an application dated 19/10/2018 in the Environment and Land Court at Kitale seeking an order for survey of parcel West Pokot/Siyoi B/8, enforcement by the OCS Kapenguria, and registration and issuance of title deeds by the Land Registrar, West Pokot. He averred he was the registered owner, had obtained (or sought) Land Control Board consent to subdivide, and wished to distribute the land into three portions for the two houses and himself. The respondent opposed, stating the issues were res judicata: in Kitale ELC No. 76 of 2017 the applicant had sought removal of a caution she lodged over the same land, and that suit was dismissed with no appeal or review. She further described the land as matrimonial property with no acreage proposals and contended the dispute required a substantive claim. The applicant maintained the present survey application raised different issues. The court framed two issues: res judicata and whether a survey order could issue. Applying Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, Henderson v Henderson (via Gurbacham v Yowani Ekori) and E.T. v Attorney General, the court - which had itself decided ELC No. 76 of 2017 - held the application touched issues already litigated between the same parties before a competent court and was res judicata. Additionally, the court found no legal basis for instituting the proceedings as a miscellaneous application under the cited enabling provisions, holding such an application must be brought within a properly filed suit under Order 3 Rule 1. The application dated 19/10/2018 was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the application is res judicata having regard to Kitale ELC No. 76 of 2017

Holding

Yes; the issues were litigated before a competent court by the same parties and the application offends Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act

Reasoning

The court, having itself adjudicated ELC No. 76 of 2017 (a suit by the applicant for removal of the respondent's caution over the same parcel), perused that judgment and found the present survey application touches issues already litigated between the same parties. The application therefore runs afoul of Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the second issue cannot be determined.

p. 2
02

Whether the application was properly instituted by way of miscellaneous application

Holding

No; there is no law in the cited provisions warranting institution by miscellaneous application, and the procedure is incompetent contrary to Order 3 Rule 1

Reasoning

The applicant relied on Article 159, Order 51 Rule 1, Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act and Sections 24(A) and 28 of the Land Registration Act. The court found no basis in those provisions for a miscellaneous application and, following Peter Kwema Kahoro and Geoffrey Ndungu Theuri, held that such an application must be mounted within a filed suit in the prescribed manner.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • For a matter to be res judicata, the matters in issue must be similar to those previously in dispute between the same parties and determined on merits by a court of competent jurisdiction
  • An application of the nature sought must be instituted within a filed suit in the manner prescribed by law and cannot be brought as a miscellaneous application under enabling-procedure provisions

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 19/10/2018 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 7 (with Explanations 1-3)
  • Civil Procedure ActSections 1A, 1B and 3A
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 51 Rule 1
  • Civil Procedure Rules 2010Order 3 Rule 1
  • Land Registration Act No. 3 of 2012Sections 24(A) and 28
  • Constitution of KenyaArticle 159

Cases cited (5)

  • Gurbacham v Yowani Ekori
    [1958] EA 450
  • Henderson v Henderson
    67 E.R. 313
  • E.T. v Attorney General & another
    [2012] eKLR
  • Peter Kwema Kahoro -vs- Benson Maina Githethuki
    [2005] eKLR
  • Geoffrey Ndungu Theuri -vs- Law Society of Kenya
    1998 eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Article 159 of the Constitution of Kenya; Order 51 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Rules; Sections 1A, 1B and 3A Civil Procedure Act; Sections 24(A) and 28 Land Registration Act No. 3 of 2012

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Tolelinyang Lomongoni v Chemoru Tolelinyang (Environment & Land Case 15 of 2018) [2019] KEELC 4227 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Miscellaneous Application dated 19/10/2018 (Kitale). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4227/eng@2019-03-21

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