Kalu & 151 others v Kenya Petroleum Refineries (Land Case E017 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 1224 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Mombasa Environment and Land Court dismissed residents' bid to stop evictions because the Court of Appeal had already confirmed the landowner's title.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit and application are res judicata
The suit on ownership and possession of MN/V1/255/1 is res judicata, having been conclusively determined in HCCC No. 544 of 2000 and the subsequent petition and appeal.
The court perused the HCCC No. 544 of 2000 judgment which concerned the same parcel, found the defendant's title undisputed, and ordered the defendants to vacate. The Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 70 of 2016 treated that judgment as a judgment in rem and dismissed the appeal. That decision binds this court, leaving the plaintiffs' injunction application a non-starter.
Whether the plaintiffs met the threshold for an interlocutory injunction
The plaintiffs did not, because the res judicata finding means they cannot restrain the defendant from exercising its rights as proprietor.
Given the unchallenged prior judgments and the binding Court of Appeal decision, the plaintiffs could not demonstrate a prima facie arguable case over the suit property. The application to restrain the defendant from exercising proprietorship rights over MN/V1/255/1 was therefore without merit and the interim status quo orders were vacated.
Whether the entire suit should be struck out for res judicata
Only the averments and prayers touching ownership and possession of MN/V1/255/1 are to be struck out, not the entire suit.
The court considered striking out the whole suit disproportionate and instead ordered the excision of the offending averments and prayers, leaving the plaintiffs free to pursue appropriate amendments to prosecute the remainder of their claim. The defendant remains at liberty to move the court if the plaintiffs fail to act.
Legal principles established
#- A decision of the Court of Appeal binds the trial court and, so long as it remains undisturbed, a claim contradicting it is a non-starter
- Costs follow the event under section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act
Court orders
#- 1.The plaintiffs' amended notice of motion dated the 14th February 2025 is dismissed
- 2.The status quo order issued on 17th February 2025 and extended on 24th February 2025 is vacated
- 3.Striking out of all averments and prayers touching on the ownership and possession of land parcel MN/V1/255/1 from the plaintiffs' amended plaint
- 4.The defendant is awarded costs in both applications
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (inferred; not expressly cited in the ruling)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Later judgments citing this (1)
#Judgments in the corpus that rely on this one. Where the Court said how it treated the authority, that is shown.
- Bonface K. Kefa & 332 Others v Kenya Petroleum Refineries & 6 others[2026] KEELC 6269 (KLR)1 Oct 2026applied
Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Kalu & 151 others v Kenya Petroleum Refineries (Land Case E017 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 1224 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Suit (Mombasa) - Interlocutory Applications dated 14th February 2025 and 21st February 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/1224/eng@2025-03-12
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.