Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutNot stated in the judgment (Petition; preliminary objection dated 19.6.2019)· [2020] KEELC 2948 (KLR)

Daniel Mesiri Kasoo & 7 others v Fredrick Nkonge Mutwiri & another [2020] KEELC 2948 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
30 April 2020
1,943 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~8 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a land petition because the same family dispute had already been decided, ruling new parties cannot restart old fights.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling by the Environment and Land Court at Meru (Lucy N. Mbugua, ELC Judge) determines a preliminary objection raised by the 1st respondent against a petition by the petitioners, descendants of Silonga Maser Ole Kaso, claiming land parcel Timau Settlement Scheme/16. The 1st respondent objected that the claim was res judicata, having been litigated in Meru CMCC No. 147 of 1997, Meru HCCA No. 53 of 1999, Nyeri HCCC No. 25 of 2010 and Meru HC Succ No. 124 of 2012, and that a related appeal was pending before the Court of Appeal. The petitioners argued they were never parties to the previous suits and were entitled to litigate their constitutional rights. The court framed one issue: whether the petition was res judicata. Applying sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Act and the five elements from Michael Gachoki Gicheru v Joseph Karobia Gicheru, the court found the same subject matter - the alleged 1982 purchase of the suit land by Silonga from Elias Kiruja - had been directly and substantially in issue and determined in the previous suits between the same family and parties claiming under the same title. Citing ET v Attorney General and Omondi v NBK, the court held that parties cannot evade res judicata by merely adding parties or causes of action, and that the petition was an abuse of the court process. The preliminary objection was upheld and the petition struck out with costs to the 1st respondent. The ruling was delivered electronically under COVID-19 practice directions.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the petition is res judicata in respect of CMCC No. 147 of 1997, HCCA 53 of 1999, HCCC No. 25 of 2010 and HC Succ No. 124 of 2012

Holding

The petition is res judicata and an abuse of the court process

Reasoning

The court applied the five elements of res judicata under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and found the same subject matter - the sale and entitlement to the suit land - had been directly and substantially determined in prior suits between the same family and parties claiming under the same title. Introducing new parties did not evade the doctrine.

p. 4
02

Whether disguising a land claim as a constitutional petition defeats res judicata

Holding

It does not; the petition was struck out as an abuse of process

Reasoning

Relying on ET v Attorney General and Omondi v NBK, the court held litigants cannot evade res judicata by introducing new causes of action or parties, and that a party is entitled to a day in court only when there is something to hear.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • A party cannot evade the doctrine of res judicata by adding new parties or disguising a claim as a constitutional petition
  • The fact that petitioners were not parties to the previous suits does not entitle them to institute a fresh petition over the same subject matter

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The notice of preliminary objection dated 19.6.2019 is allowed with merits
  2. 2.The petition is struck out with costs to the 1st respondent
Jurisdiction invoked
Original constitutional petition jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; objection founded on sections 6, 7 and 8 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Daniel Mesiri Kasoo & 7 others v Fredrick Nkonge Mutwiri & another [2020] KEELC 2948 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2020). Not stated in the judgment (Petition; preliminary objection dated 19.6.2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2020/2948/eng@2020-04-30

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