Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNotice of Motion dated 5th May 2020 (in the Nakuru Environment and Land Court suit, formerly Eldoret ELC No. 119 of 2017 proceedings)· [2020] KEELC 1822 (KLR)

Stephen Kibowen v Raymond Ruto & 5 others [2020] KEELC 1822 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
3 July 2020
1,698 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~7 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A Kenyan court struck out a repeat stay application because parties must raise all their arguments at once—not in drips to delay a case.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By Notice of Motion dated 5th May 2020, the defendants in a Nakuru Environment and Land Court suit sought a stay of proceedings pending hearing and final determination of Eldoret HCCC No. 77 of 2018 (formerly Eldoret ELC No. 119 of 2017), in which the statutory power of sale and the plaintiff's root of title were said to be in dispute. The plaintiff opposed, arguing the defendants were forum-shopping to delay the hearing and that the application was res judicata in light of the court's rulings dated 15th February 2018 and 29th July 2019. The court framed two issues: whether the application was res judicata and whether the orders sought should issue. Relying on Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court found the application res judicata. The applicants had previously sought consolidation with the Eldoret suit (dismissed by ruling of 15th February 2018) and stay of proceedings pending appeal (dismissed by ruling of 29th July 2019). Applying the doctrine that res judicata extends to all points a diligent party ought to have raised, and noting that a stay pending appeal in a case with no judgment yet was equivalent to the stay now sought, the court held the application could not succeed. It also observed the application was filed only because the suit was scheduled for hearing on 27th May 2020, evidencing a pattern of delay. The Notice of Motion was struck out with costs to the plaintiff, with directions to be given for early hearing. The ruling was delivered remotely under the Chief Justice's COVID-19 Practice Directions.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the Notice of Motion dated 5th May 2020 seeking stay of proceedings is res judicata

Holding

The application is res judicata; the issues had been raised and determined in the rulings dated 15th February 2018 and 29th July 2019, and res judicata extends to points that ought to have been raised earlier.

Reasoning

Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act bars re-litigation of matters directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, heard and finally decided. The applicants had previously sought consolidation/transfer (dismissed 15th February 2018) and stay of proceedings pending appeal (dismissed 29th July 2019). A stay pending appeal where no judgment had been delivered amounts to the same thing as the stay now sought. Fragmenting issues is frowned upon under explanation 4 to Section 7.

p. 2
02

Whether stay of proceedings should issue pending determination of Eldoret HCCC No. 77 of 2018

Holding

Not considered, as the res judicata finding disposed of the application; the court also noted the application was timed to derail a scheduled hearing.

Reasoning

The court held there was no need to consider the second issue once the application was found res judicata. It further observed the application was filed because the suit was scheduled for hearing on 27th May 2020, evidencing a multiplicity of applications aimed at delay, and directed that the suit be fixed for early hearing.

p. 1

Legal principles established

#
  • Res judicata applies not only to points actually raised but to all points a diligent party ought to have raised; parties must raise their whole case at one go.
  • Res judicata operates as a complete estoppel against any suit that runs afoul of it.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.Notice of Motion dated 5th May 2020 struck out with costs to the plaintiff

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 7 (including explanation 4)
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 6

Cases cited (2)

  • John Florence Maritime Services Limited & another v Cabinet Secretary for Transport and Infrastructure & 3 others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Maithene Malindi Enterprises Limited v Kaniki Karisa Kaniki & 2 others
    [2018] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Inherent jurisdiction of the court under the Civil Procedure Act; application brought by Notice of Motion (no specific constitutional provision cited)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Stephen Kibowen v Raymond Ruto & 5 others [2020] KEELC 1822 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Notice of Motion dated 5th May 2020 (in the Nakuru Environment and Land Court suit, formerly Eldoret ELC No. 119 of 2017 proceedings). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/1822/eng@2020-07-03

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