Tankol & 9 others v Chief Land Registrar & 3 others; Korinko & another (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Petition 7 of 2021) [2023] KEELC 755 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court in Kilgoris dismissed a decade-old land petition because the same membership and title disputes over Shartuka Group Ranch had already been decided by earlier Kenyan courts.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the issues in the Petition were directly and substantially in issue in the former suit
Yes - the bona fide membership of Shartuka Group Ranch and the legality of the listed titles were the same issues determined previously
Comparing the reliefs sought with the former pleadings, the Gazette Notices and the Court of Appeal judgment in Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2004, the Court found the two central questions - the valid members register and the legality of the titles to be cancelled - identical to those previously litigated and determined.
Whether the parties are the same or litigating under the same title despite different names
Yes - the Petitioners, like the former Plaintiffs, claim as bona fide members of Shartuka Group Ranch, and the Respondents mirror former Defendants (land officials and the Ranch)
The Court held that the Petitioners' locus derives from membership of the group ranch, the same capacity in which the former Plaintiffs sued; the 1st, 2nd and 5th Respondents correspond to the 8th, 10th and 11th Defendants in the previous suit. Allowing each member to sue afresh would immortalise the litigation.
Whether the same titles were in litigation and whether the issues were heard and determined by competent courts
Yes - the parcel lists sought to be cancelled are the same as those previously litigated, and the issues were determined by the High Court and Court of Appeal
The listed parcels in prayer 6 match those in Kakamega Misc Application No. 103 of 2003. The Court of Appeal's 15th September 1998 orders, the striking out of Civil Appeal No. 237 of 1998, the quashing of Gazette Notice No. 4984, and the dismissal of Civil Appeal No. 5 of 2004 (which declared the suits an abuse of process) all conclusively determined the register and title issues.
Legal principles established
#- Res judicata ousts jurisdiction where the issue was directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties litigating under the same title, heard and finally determined by a competent court
- Parties cannot evade res judicata by changing parties' names or adding cosmetic new causes of action
- Res judicata applies to constitutional petitions and claims of constitutional rights
- Members of a group ranch asserting the same grievance cannot litigate serially under different names
Court orders
#- 1.The petition dated September 24, 2013 be and is hereby dismissed for being res judicata
- 2.The stay orders issued on 19th May 2020 prohibiting hearing/determination of cases touching the Shartuka Adjudication Section be lifted, vacated and/or discharged
- 3.The injunctive orders issued on 19th May 2020 to the respondents prohibiting alienation, selling and/or issuance of title deeds within Shartuka Adjudication Section be lifted, vacated and/or discharged forthwith
- 4.The costs of the petition shall be borne by the petitioners
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 (Environment and Land Court); petition originally filed in the High Court in 2013 and transferred to the ELC upon its establishment
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Tankol & 9 others v Chief Land Registrar & 3 others; Korinko & another (Interested Parties) (Environment & Land Petition 7 of 2021) [2023] KEELC 755 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2023). Constitutional Petition dated September 24, 2013 (Kilgoris ELC). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2023/755/eng@2023-02-02
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.