Republic v District Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu County; Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission (Interested Party); Chemey Investments Limited (Exparte) (Judicial Review 39 of 2010) [2019] KEELC 4885 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The High Court struck out Chemey Investments' judicial review case because the company had already lost the same land dispute in a prior constitutional petition and appeal.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the judicial review application was barred as an abuse of process having regard to the prior constitutional petition and its appeal
The application was a gross abuse of the court process and was struck out
The judicial review proceedings arose from the same transaction as the earlier constitutional petition in which the Applicant lost. The Applicant sought a second bite at the cherry by re-litigating in a different forum. The Court of Appeal had dismissed the appeal and found the Applicant was not a bona fide purchaser. This court could not reach a different conclusion on the substantive application.
Whether the pendency of an appeal excuses parallel proceedings
No; the Applicant had the option of discontinuing the judicial review proceedings and proceeding on appeal, and the appeal had since been concluded and dismissed
The instant proceedings were commenced years after the constitutional petition. Judgment in the petition was delivered during the pendency of the judicial review, but that did not explain the duplication. By the time of the hearing, the Court of Appeal had upheld the High Court decision and dismissed the appeal entirely, a fact the Applicant did not disclose to the court.
Legal principles established
#- Res judicata extends to every point which properly belonged to the subject of the earlier proceedings and which the parties, exercising due diligence, might have brought forward
- A multiplicity of suits over the same transaction is not a suitable manner of resolving disputes; re-litigating an adjudicated matter in a different forum is an abuse of process
Court orders
#- 1.The Applicant's notice of motion dated and filed on 22nd November 2010 is struck out
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the Respondent and the interested party
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Leave granted under Order 53 of the Civil Procedure Rules for judicial review (certiorari and prohibition)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Republic v District Land Registrar, Uasin Gishu County; Ethics & Anti-Corruption Commission (Interested Party); Chemey Investments Limited (Exparte) (Judicial Review 39 of 2010) [2019] KEELC 4885 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2019). Judicial Review Application (Notice of Motion dated 22nd November 2010), Eldoret. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2019/4885/eng@2019-01-24
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.