Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissedNotice of Motion Application dated 21/01/2024 (appeal against Judgment in MCELC Case No. 32 of 2019)· [2025] KEELC 5271 (KLR)

Githu v Kenya Com Rabbit Consortium Limited (Environment and Land Appeal E050 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5271 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
7 July 2025
2,536 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

#

The Environment and Land Court in Thika refused to pause enforcement of a Kshs 3.97 million judgment because the applicant had already lost the same request earlier.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The Court determined a Notice of Motion dated 21/01/2024 by the Appellant/Applicant seeking stay of execution of the judgment delivered on 26/05/2022 in Kiambu MCELC Case No. 32 of 2019, which decreed the Appellant to refund Kshs 3,970,000 with interest at commercial rates plus costs, and further seeking leave for Mukuria & Company Advocates to come on record. The Respondent opposed, contending that an identical stay application had earlier been dismissed with the Memorandum of Appeal struck out and file closed, that no appeal or review lay against those orders, and that the fresh application was res judicata, brought after inordinate delay and without offer of security. The court examined res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, drawing on the Supreme Court's exposition of the doctrine's conjunctive elements and authorities to the effect that the doctrine applies to applications just as to suits and cannot be evaded by adding parties or causes of action. Finding that a prior Notice of Motion before the Chief Magistrate's Court had included a prayer for stay of the same judgment between the same parties, the court held the present application res judicata and an abuse of process, observing that the only route to challenge a decision is review or appeal. The application was dismissed with costs to the Respondent. Written submissions were directed and filed by both parties.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the application for stay is res judicata

Holding

The application is res judicata as the issue of stay was previously determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction between the same parties

Reasoning

The court found that a prior Notice of Motion at the Chief Magistrate's Court included a prayer for stay of the same judgment of 26/05/2022, and that an earlier application for stay had been dismissed with the Memorandum of Appeal struck out and file closed. All conjunctive elements of Section 7 were met: same subject matter, same parties, same title, prior final determination by a competent court. Re-litigating was an abuse of process.

p. 5
02

Whether the appeal/preferred Memorandum of Appeal supports the application

Holding

The Appellant cannot rely on the Memorandum of Appeal since it was struck out and the file closed

Reasoning

The Respondent showed that an earlier stay application was dismissed and the Memorandum of Appeal struck out, with no appeal or review preferred against those orders. Consequently the substratum of the stay application — the pending appeal — was defective, reinforcing the conclusion that the applicant was attempting to litigate a concluded matter.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Res judicata applies to applications just as it does to suits
  • A party cannot relitigate an issue already determined by a court of competent jurisdiction; the only avenue is review or appeal
  • All elements of Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act must be satisfied conjunctively for res judicata to be invoked

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The Notice of Motion dated 21/1/2024 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs awarded to the Respondent
On appeal from
Chief Magistrate's Court at Kiambu
MCELC Case No. 32 of 2019
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 1A, 1B and 3A of the Civil Procedure Act; Order 9 Rules 9 and 10, Order 51 Rule 1 and Order 42 Rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Githu v Kenya Com Rabbit Consortium Limited (Environment and Land Appeal E050 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 5271 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Notice of Motion Application dated 21/01/2024 (appeal against Judgment in MCELC Case No. 32 of 2019). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5271/eng@2025-07-07

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