Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCDismissed· [2025] KEELC 5788 (KLR)

Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Ahmed & 7 others; Mombasa County Government (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 5788 (KLR)

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

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court in Mombasa ruled that a sub judice objection cannot be decided without examining evidence, so such objections rarely succeed as pure legal points.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa (Y. M. Angima, J) determined a notice of preliminary objection dated 21.02.2025 filed by the 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th defendants, contending that the suit offended Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act (sub judice) because it was similar to ELC No. E107 of 2024, Al Kamar Trading Company Limited v EACC and 3 others, pending before ELC Court No. 3 of Mombasa. The objection was canvassed by written submissions; the defendants filed submissions on 16.07.2025 but the plaintiff filed none. The court framed two issues: whether the preliminary objection was merited, and who should bear its costs. Relying on the classic definition of a preliminary objection in Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Limited, the court held that determining whether sub judice is offended requires examining the pleadings of the pending suit to compare facts and issues, taking the matter outside the ambit of a preliminary objection. Following Margaret Wachu Karuri v John Waweru Ribiro, it held that a preliminary objection cannot rest on disputed facts, and found sub judice, like res judicata, incapable of being handled as a preliminary objection. On costs, although costs generally follow the event under the proviso to Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act, the court made no order as to costs because the plaintiff did not participate. The preliminary objection dated 21.02.2025 was overruled with no order as to costs, and the suit proceeds to full hearing.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether a preliminary objection on sub judice (Section 6, Civil Procedure Act) is merited

Holding

Not merited; sub judice requires examination of pleadings and evidence and is not a pure point of law.

Reasoning

The court applied Mukisa Biscuits on the definition of a preliminary objection and held that determining whether the rule of sub judice is offended requires delving into the pleadings of the pending suit to compare facts and issues, which takes the matter outside the ambit of a preliminary objection. It relied on Margaret Wachu Karuri v John Waweru Ribiro, where the court held that a preliminary objection cannot be raised on disputed facts.

p. 2
02

Costs of the preliminary objection

Holding

No order as to costs, despite the general rule that costs follow the event, because the plaintiff did not participate in the objection.

Reasoning

The court acknowledged that costs are discretionary and ordinarily follow the event per Section 27 of the Civil Procedure Act and Hussein Janmohamed & Sons v Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd. However, since the plaintiff did not file submissions or participate in canvassing the objection, the court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs.

p. 3

Legal principles established

#
  • Sub judice, like res judicata, requires probing of evidence and pleadings and therefore cannot be raised as a pure point of law by way of preliminary objection.

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th defendant's notice of preliminary objection dated 21.02.2025 is overruled with no order as to costs.

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Civil Procedure ActSection 6
  • Civil Procedure ActSection 27 (proviso)

Cases cited (4)

  • Mukisa Biscuits Manufacturing Co. Ltd v West End Distributors Limited
    [1969] EA. 696
  • Al Kamar Trading Company Limited v EACC and 3 others
    ELC No. E107 of 2024
  • Margaret Wachu Karuri v John Waweru Ribiro
    (2021) eKLR
  • Hussein Janmohamed & Sons v Twentsche Overseas Trading Co. Ltd
    [1967] EA 287
Jurisdiction invoked
Not expressly stated; decision on preliminary objection under Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Ethics and Anti-Corruption Commission v Ahmed & 7 others; Mombasa County Government (Interested Party) (Environment and Land Case E005 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 5788 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). . Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/5788/eng@2025-07-31

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