Chorlim Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd v Attorney General & another [2020] KEELC 2207 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court dismissed a co-operative's land compensation suit because the same issues had already been decided in an earlier case.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the refund of stand premium claim is res judicata
Res judicata - the issue of refund of stand premium and propriety of allocation was dealt with in the earlier petition, where a refund was ordered.
The court perused the ruling of 31/5/2018 in Kitale ELC Petition No. 4 of 2017 and found the issues of refund of stand premium and propriety of allocation were directly dealt with, a refund having been ordered. The same land was the subject matter and the plaintiff was a party, satisfying Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Whether the claim for alternative land is res judicata
Res judicata - the prayer for alternative land could and should have been raised in the 2017 petition once the plaintiff knew the land was forest land.
Applying Henderson v Henderson, the plaintiff was aware from the 2014 judicial review proceedings and the respondents' grounds of opposition that the land was gazetted forest land not available for allocation. The prayer for alternative land properly belonged to the subject of litigation in the petition and should have been brought forward there; it is therefore res judicata.
Whether the claim for general and punitive damages for unlawful eviction is res judicata
Res judicata - the eviction notice issue was litigated and any complaint should have been raised in the concluded 2017 petition.
The 2014 judicial review ruling established that a letter from the District Forest Officer communicated the District Environment Committee's decision, constituting sufficient notice. The alleged lack of notice was the main ingredient of the eviction claim and ought to have been raised in the petition, which is already concluded; the claim is thus res judicata.
Consequence of res judicata on jurisdiction
Section 7 deprives the court of jurisdiction; the suit is dismissed.
Having found all reliefs res judicata, the court invoked the Lillian S principle that jurisdiction is everything and a court without it must down its tools. The preliminary objection dated 29/4/2019 was found to have merit.
Legal principles established
#- A litigant should not, except in exceptional circumstances, reopen in subsequent litigation a matter which might have been brought forward in the earlier suit.
- Once a suit is found to be res judicata, the court is deprived of jurisdiction and must down its tools.
Court orders
#- 1.This suit is dismissed for being res judicata
- 2.The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the suit
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act (Cap 21) - res judicata, depriving the court of jurisdiction
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Chorlim Multipurpose Co-operative Society Ltd v Attorney General & another [2020] KEELC 2207 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the extract (Kitale ELC suit arising from plaint dated 11/9/2018). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2207/eng@2020-04-30
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.