Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedMeru ELC Petition (application dated 5.8.2021)· [2022] KEELC 641 (KLR)

Michael Gatuma & 19 others v Victor Karithi Mutuma & another [2022] KEELC 641 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
23 March 2022
2,222 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed a repeat land injunction application, confirming you cannot re-argue a decided application without new facts.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The petitioners moved the court by an application dated 5.8.2021 under Rules 21 and 22 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Freedoms) Rules 2003 seeking temporary and permanent injunctions restraining the respondents from carrying out construction works on, and allocating to individuals, Parcel No. 215 Athwana/Akithi, land they alleged was public land reserved for the proposed Karamene market. They claimed it had been subdivided into 14 plots and illegally allocated, without public participation, approvals or licences, in breach of their constitutional rights. The 1st respondent opposed the application as speculative, political, res judicata and an abuse of process; the 2nd respondent (through Catherine Kithinji) denied any subdivisions, allocations or approved developments. The court framed two issues: whether the application was res judicata, and whether the petitioners were entitled to the orders sought. It found that a virtually identical application dated 18.6.2019 had been heard and determined on 29.1.2020, and that the petitioners had produced no new facts, no authenticated photographs, no official searches, minutes or complaints to the National Land Commission or the County Planning Liaison Committee to justify a fresh application. Applying Uhuru Highway Development Ltd v Central Bank of Kenya and George Kihara Mbiyu v Margaret Njeri Mbiyu, the court held that res judicata applies to interlocutory applications and dismissed the application with costs. It directed parties to set down the main petition for hearing within 90 days, failing which it would stand dismissed for non-prosecution.

Key legal issues

#
01

Res judicata of interlocutory applications

Holding

The application dated 5.8.2021 was res judicata, being a replica of an earlier application dated 18.6.2019 decided on 29.1.2020 between the same parties over the same subject matter

Reasoning

The court compared the earlier and instant applications and found prayers 3 and 5 had been heard and determined to finality. No new facts, amendments or evidence (such as searches, minutes or authenticated photographs) were presented to justify a fresh application. Reliance was placed on Uhuru Highway Development v Central Bank of Kenya and George Kihara Mbiyu v Margaret Njeri Mbiyu, confirming res judicata covers interlocutory decisions.

p. 4
02

Evidential sufficiency for injunctive relief

Holding

The petitioners failed to establish a prima facie case; photographs were unauthenticated and no official searches, minutes or complaints were exhibited

Reasoning

The court noted the photographs attached had not been authenticated, and no dates, places or particulars of the alleged allottees were given. No official searches from the Ministry of Lands, minutes, or requests to NCA, Public Health, NEMA or Ministry of Public Works supported the claims of allocation, change of user or lack of permits. No complaint had been lodged with the County Planning Liaison Committee.

p. 4

Legal principles established

#
  • The doctrine of res judicata applies equally to decisions on applications as to final decisions on matters
  • Once an application is heard and determined, a similar application cannot be brought unless there are new facts not before the court earlier, disclosed after due diligence

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 5.8.2021 is dismissed with costs
  2. 2.Parties to set down the petition for hearing within 90 days failure of which it shall stand dismissed for non-prosecution

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Freedoms) Rules 2003Rule 21 and 22
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 7
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 89
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40 Rule 1(a)

Cases cited (13)

  • Giella –vs- Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd
    [1973] E.A 358
  • Naftali Ruthi Kinyua Gachure –vs- Patrick Thuita & Another
    [2015] eKLR
  • Tritex Industries Ltd & 3 Others –vs- National Housing Corporation & Another
    [2014] eKLR
  • Thomas Mungiria & 9 Others –vs- Joseph Mutuma & 4 Others
    [2012] eKLR Meru HCC No. 12 of 2010
  • Nyayo Embakasi Resident Association (George Ochola & 3 Others –vs- National Social Security Fund & Another)
    [2015] eKLR
  • Mrao Ltd –vs- First American Bank Ltd & 2 Others
    [2003] KLR 125
  • San Electricals Ltd –vs- Sitima Enterprises Ltd & 4 Others
    [2015] eKLR
  • Uhuru Highway Development Ltd –vs- Central Bank of Kenya
    [1996] eKLR
  • Kanorero River Farm & 3 Others –vs- National Bank of Kenya Ltd
    [1986] KLA
  • George Kihara Mbiyu –vs- Margaret Njeri Mbiyu & 15 Others
    [2018] eKLR
  • Peter Njogu –vs- Joyce Wambui Njugu & Another
    [2005] eKLR
  • Joseph Kathuthi & 11 Others –vs- Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Interior & Coordination of Government & Another
    [2021] eKLR
  • Mburu Kinyua –vs- Gachini Tuti
    [1978] KLR 69
Jurisdiction invoked
Rule 21 and 22 of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Freedoms) Rules 2003

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Michael Gatuma & 19 others v Victor Karithi Mutuma & another [2022] KEELC 641 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2022). Meru ELC Petition (application dated 5.8.2021). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2022/641/eng@2022-03-23

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