Salama Wanjiku Mumba v Mumba Chome Waro & 3 others (ruling on injunction applications)
The bottom line
#Even a strong land dispute case can lose on injunction if the same property is already before another Kenyan court — join or stay that case first.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the application was res judicata given the Kilifi Magistrates Court ruling
Res judicata was not established because the plaintiff here was not a party to the Kilifi matter and the reliefs differ; however the sub judice concern remained decisive
The court accepted the applicant's reliance on Gladys Nduku Nthuki v Letshego Kenya Limited, holding the doctrine requires the same parties litigating under the same title. Mombasa Cement, the plaintiff in the Kilifi case, does not represent the plaintiff here, and the prayers here (revocation of title for fraud) differ from the refund claim in Kilifi. The Kilifi ruling also did not fully and finally decide entitlement to the property, rendering the res judicata objection moot.
Whether a temporary injunction should issue over property in active litigation in another court
No. Even though a prima facie case, irreparable loss and balance of convenience were demonstrated, the same parcel Kilifi/Roka/794 is the subject of the pending Kilifi MELC No. 49 of 2020, and issuing the injunction would in effect stop those proceedings
Applying Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and the sub judice doctrine as explained in Daniel Kipkemoi Bett, the court found the suit property substantially in issue in the Kilifi case, whose injunction application had been dismissed, prompting the statutory power of sale. Allowing both suits to proceed risks conflicting outcomes. The proper course was for the applicant to seek joinder in the Kilifi suit or a stay of it, neither of which was done.
Whether the Court should review its earlier refusal to grant an ex parte injunction
Nothing to review; the ex parte injunction had already issued on 20th December 2023 and the two motions were the same
The court noted it had granted an ex parte injunction on 20th December 2023 restraining sale pending the inter partes hearing. The later application seeking review was therefore redundant as both motions were identical; the only live question was the inter partes injunction, which was refused on sub judice grounds.
Legal principles established
#- Res judicata does not apply where the parties and reliefs differ; the plaintiff in this suit was not a party to the Kilifi matter and the prayers sought here are more expansive
- A court of competent jurisdiction cannot issue an injunction affecting a matter pending before another competent court where sub judice concerns arise, absent a stay of the prior proceedings or appellate invocation
Court orders
#- 1.Application dated 14th December 2023 as duplicated in the one dated 19th December 2023 dismissed with costs
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (the Court held it 'has jurisdiction to entertain the matter'); governed by the Civil Procedure Act including Section 6 on sub judice
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Salama Wanjiku Mumba v Mumba Chome Waro & 3 others (ruling on injunction applications)", Case Analysis (2024). ELC Case No. 49 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2024/4411/eng@2024-05-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.