Sammy K. Samich v Abraham K. Kiptanui & another; Victor Kimitai Matelong (Proposed Interested Party) [2020] KEELC 2280 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court struck out a 2019 land suit because it merely re-litigated a dispute already decided in 2000, adding a new party to disguise it.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit is res judicata
The preliminary objection on res judicata was upheld; the suit is substantially similar to Nakuru HCCC No. 537 of 2000, between the same parties litigating over the same land, which was struck out with costs, a decree issued and never appealed.
The court compared the plaint, defence, ruling of 23rd March 2001 and decree of 25th January 2005 in HCCC No. 537 of 2000 with the current suit, finding identical claims over LR Plot No. 133 Baharini Settlement Scheme. The plaintiff is the legal representative of the estate of the original plaintiff, and the added 2nd defendant does not change the parties. The inter partes hearing and issuance of a decree meant the earlier suit received a final determination. Re-litigating 19 years later, without appeal, is an abuse of process.
Whether the interested party should be joined and ex parte orders set aside
Both applications were rendered unnecessary by the striking out of the suit.
Because the court found the suit res judicata, it declined to consider joinder or setting aside of the ex parte orders, holding there is no suit in which an interested party could be joined, and that the interested party, if he has a claim, knows what to do.
Limitation of actions objection
Not separately determined; subsumed within the res judicata finding.
The 1st defendant also argued the suit was time-barred under section 7 of the Limitation of Actions Act and relied on Order 2 Rule 15. The plaintiff countered that limitation must be pleaded in a defence, which the 1st defendant had not filed. The court did not rule on limitation, instead striking out the suit on res judicata.
Legal principles established
#- The four essential ingredients of res judicata are: previous litigation with identical claims or claims that could have been raised; same parties; a court with jurisdiction; and a final judgment on the merits.
- Introduction of a new party does not circumvent the doctrine of res judicata.
- Litigation must come to an end; re-litigating a claim that was heard and determined, long after without appeal, amounts to abuse of court process.
Court orders
#- 1.Preliminary objection on the ground of res judicata upheld
- 2.Suit struck out with costs to the 1st defendant
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (statutory basis not expressly invoked in the judgment as provided)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Sammy K. Samich v Abraham K. Kiptanui & another; Victor Kimitai Matelong (Proposed Interested Party) [2020] KEELC 2280 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment as provided. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2280/eng@2020-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.