Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNot stated in the judgment (Environment and Land Court, Kitale)· [2025] KEELC 4994 (KLR)

Kitelo & 2 others v Tum & 4 others (Environment and Planning Civil Case E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4994 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
2 July 2025
2,457 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~10 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court dismissed both an injunction and a sub-judice objection, confirming a struck-out suit cannot block new litigation.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Kitale (C.K. Nzili, J) determines two applications dated 25/3/2025 and 7/4/2025 together with a preliminary objection. The plaintiffs sought a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from constructing on, subdividing, cultivating, charging or disposing of parcels Trans Nzoia/Chemichemi/251, 252 and 253, contending that the 1st plaintiff bought 5 acres of Trans Nzoia/Chemichemi/44 in 2008, took possession, and that the land was later sold to the 2nd defendant after the 2nd plaintiff's brother (a co-owner) had died, subdivided and charged to the 3rd defendant without the plaintiffs' consent. The 2nd defendant applied to strike out the suit as res sub-judice, citing pending Kitale CMCC Land Case No. 110 of 2024 between the same parties. The court held that sub-judice was improperly invoked: the lower court suit had been struck out on 2/9/2024 and, once struck out, ceased to exist; subsequent reinstatement and review applications did not revive it. On the injunction, the court found no prima facie case, no irreparable harm not compensable in damages, and noted the plaintiffs' non-disclosure of material facts and unclean hands, contrary to equity's clean-hands doctrine. Both applications were dismissed with costs. The suit proceeds to full trial.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the suit is res sub-judice given Kitale CMCC Land Case No. 110 of 2024

Holding

Sub-judice was improperly invoked because the earlier suit had been struck out and was not pending when this suit was filed

Reasoning

Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act bars later suits only where a earlier suit is pending between the same parties over the same subject matter. The lower court suit was struck out on 2/9/2024 for want of jurisdiction. Reinstatement and review applications afterwards did not revive it, so no suit was pending at the time this suit was filed.

p. 4
02

Whether the plaintiffs established a case for a temporary injunction

Holding

The injunction application failed on all three Giella grounds, aggravated by non-disclosure and unclean hands

Reasoning

The material facts - the 2008 sale, subsequent sale and transfer, occupation and the charge - were strenuously refuted by all three defendants and the plaintiffs filed no supplementary affidavits. No infringed right was established, any damage was compensable in damages, and non-disclosure of material facts disentitled them to equitable relief.

p. 5

Legal principles established

#
  • A suit struck out ceases to exist and cannot be revived by post-striking-out applications; the doctrine of res sub-judice requires a pending suit
  • Elements of res sub-judice under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act
  • The three Giella conditions for a temporary injunction are applied separately, distinctly and logically
  • A party seeking ex-parte equitable relief must make full and frank disclosure and come with clean hands

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 7/4/2025 seeking striking out of the suit on account of sub-judice is dismissed with costs
  2. 2.The application dated 25/3/2025 seeking a temporary injunction is dismissed with costs to the respondents

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 6
  • Civil Procedure RulesOrder 40(1)

Cases cited (16)

  • Giella -vs- Cassman Brown Ltd
    [1973] 358
  • Mrao Ltd -vs- First American Bank of (K) Ltd
    [2003] eKLR
  • Pius Kipchirchir Kogo -vs- Kimeli Tenai
    [2018] eKLR
  • Kenya National Commission on Human Rights -vs- Attorney General & IEBC (IP)
    [2020] eKLR
  • Patrick Waweru Mwangi & another -vs- Housing Finance Co. of Kenya Ltd
    [2013] eKLR (citation truncated in judgment)
  • Samuel Njenga Kimani & 2 others -vs- Jomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture & Technology (JKUAT)
    [2021] KEELC 578 (KLR)
  • Delphin Kanuu Kamau -vs- Fina Bank Limited
    [2020] eKLR
  • Nairobi Kiru Line Services Ltd -vs- County Government of Nyeri & 2 others
    [2016] eKLR
  • Moses Ngenye Kahindo -vs- Agricultural Finance Corporation
    [2007] eKLR
  • Kitur -vs- Standard Chartered Bank & 2 others
    [2002] eKLR
  • Kenleb Cons Ltd -vs- New Gatitu Service Station Ltd & another
    [1990] eKLR
  • Koros Bernard -vs- Geoffrey Bii
    [2017] eKLR
  • Joseph Okoth Waudi -vs- National Bank of Kenya Ltd
    [2004] eKLR
  • Republic -vs- Kenya Medical Training College & Attorney General Ex-Parte Kenya Universities and Colleges Central Placement Service
    [2015] KEHC 7775 (KLR)
  • Nyanja Holdings Ltd & 2 Others -vs- City Finance Bank Limited & Another
    [2008] eKLR
  • Nguruman Ltd -vs- Jan Bonde Nielsen & Others
    [2014] eKLR
Jurisdiction invoked
Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (interlocutory applications in a pending suit)

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Kitelo & 2 others v Tum & 4 others (Environment and Planning Civil Case E002 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 4994 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the judgment (Environment and Land Court, Kitale). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/4994/eng@2025-07-02

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