Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck Out· [2024] KEELC 371 (KLR)

Magara & 2 others v Lakeview Investments Limited (Environment & Land Case E005 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 371 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
31 January 2024
3,413 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~14 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

The Environment and Land Court struck out a landowners' suit because the same dispute had already been decided, showing Kenyan courts won't allow second attempts at settled cases.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Environment and Land Court at Machakos (Christine Ochieng, J) determined two competing applications: the Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion dated 23rd January 2023 seeking an injunction restraining the Defendant from dealing with LR No. 25693 (Grant IR 99992) at Mavoko, eviction of the Defendant and its agents, and police assistance; and the Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 17th April 2023 seeking striking out of the Plaintiffs' suit as res judicata and an abuse of process. The Defendant relied on its earlier suit, Machakos ELC No. 210 of 2011 (Lakeview Investments Limited v Ian Magara Bwosiemo, Brenda Kwamboka Manwah and Al Ruhia Estates Limited), in which judgment delivered on 5th October 2017 upheld its sale agreement, declared the later agreement with the 3rd Defendant null and void, and ordered refund of Kshs. 1,950,000 with interest; a review application was dismissed on 22nd March 2019. The court framed two issues: whether the suit was res judicata, and whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to injunction and eviction orders. Applying Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and the cited authorities, the court held the suit fulfilled the ingredients of res judicata: the same land was in issue, the parties were substantially the same (with an added plaintiff and Al Ruhia Estates omitted), and the matter had been heard and finally determined by a competent court. The court found the Plaintiffs were abusing process by clothing the same cause of action in a different garment, held itself functus officio, and declined to consider the injunction and eviction application. The suit was struck out with costs to the Defendant, and the Plaintiffs' application struck out with costs.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit is res judicata

Holding

The suit is res judicata as the dispute over LR No. 25693 was directly and substantially determined in Machakos ELC 210 of 2011 between the same parties litigating under the same title, and the court is functus officio.

Reasoning

The court compared the parties and subject matter of the present suit with ELC 210 of 2011, in which a competent court determined ownership of the same land, ordered refund of the purchase price, and later dismissed a review. The court found the parties were the same save for an added plaintiff and the omission of Al Ruhia Estates Limited, and that adding a new cause of action cannot defeat res judicata.

p. 6
02

Whether the Plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction and eviction orders

Holding

The court declined to consider the injunction and eviction application once it found the suit res judicata.

Reasoning

Having found the suit barred by res judicata and the court functus officio, the court held the Plaintiffs' application seeking interlocutory injunction and eviction orders was unmerited and struck it out, observing that any eviction should have been pursued in compliance with the decree in ELC 210 of 2011.

Legal principles established

#
  • Parties cannot evade res judicata by adding parties or dressing the same cause of action in a new form.
  • Ingredients of res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act require the matter directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties litigating under the same title, heard and finally decided by a competent court.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion Application dated 23rd January 2023 struck out with costs.
  2. 2.The Defendant's Notice of Motion Application dated 17th April 2023 allowed.
  3. 3.The suit struck out with costs to the Defendant.
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the Environment and Land Court Act (not expressly cited; suit concerning land in Mavoko, Machakos County)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Magara & 2 others v Lakeview Investments Limited (Environment & Land Case E005 of 2023) [2024] KEELC 371 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2024). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/371/eng@2024-01-31

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