Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCOtherNot stated in the extract (plaint dated 28th March 2022)· [2025] KEELC 6457 (KLR)

Karebe Gold Mining Limited & another v Korir & 14 others (Environment and Land Case E009 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 6457 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
29 September 2025
2,142 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

Kenya's Environment and Land Court halted an entire land dispute because the same issues were already pending before the Court of Appeal.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
By a Notice of Motion dated 1st April 2025 under section 5(1) of the Judicature Act, the 1st plaintiff sought committal to civil jail of twenty named persons associated with the 1st defendant, demolition of cyanide leaching tanks on Nandi/chemase/974, and enforcement assistance from NEMA and OCPD Songhor, alleging contempt of status quo orders issued on 18th October 2022 prohibiting all mining on the suit land. The applicant alleged the named persons conducted cyanide leaching operations between October 2024 and March 2025, and noted several had previously been held in contempt by a ruling of 9th March 2023. The 1st defendant opposed via grounds of opposition and a replying affidavit, contending the application was moot as it rested on non-existent orders said to have lapsed upon the Court of Appeal's dismissal on 2nd December 2022 of the application in Civil Appeal No. 177 of 2020. The applicant maintained in a further affidavit that the Court of Appeal matter was distinct and its dismissal did not lapse the orders. The 2nd plaintiff and 2nd defendant did not oppose the application. The court, having reviewed the record, noted the pending Court of Appeal appeal on the same subject matter. Applying the sub judice principle under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and its inherent powers under sections 3 and 3A, and relying on Goldenberg, Kituo Cha Sheria and David Ndii, it held that the same subject matter could not proceed simultaneously before both courts. It stayed the entire suit pending the outcome of the Court of Appeal appeal, thereby disposing of the contempt application without determining the alleged contempt on its merits. No costs order appears in the extract.

Key legal issues

#
01

Sub judice / stay of proceedings pending appeal on the same subject matter

Holding

The suit is stayed in its entirety under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act pending the outcome of Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. 177 of 2020

Reasoning

The court found the subject matter of the contempt application is also before the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No. 177 of 2020, which is pending hearing. Invoking the sub judice principle anchored in section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and the court's inherent powers under sections 3 and 3A, it held that entertaining the matter would risk conflicting determinations and abuse of process, justifying a stay rather than ruling on the contempt allegations.

p. 6
02

Whether the contempt application was moot as anchored on non-existent orders

Holding

Not decisively determined; the court disposed of the matter on sub judice grounds instead

Reasoning

The 1st defendant argued the orders of 18th October 2022 lapsed automatically upon the Court of Appeal's ruling of 2nd December 2022 on the application dated 28th July 2020. The applicant countered that the Court of Appeal application was distinct and its dismissal did not lapse the orders. The court did not resolve this dispute, instead staying the proceedings on sub judice grounds.

Legal principles established

#
  • A court should not simultaneously entertain the same subject matter pending before the Court of Appeal; the sub judice rule under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act mandates a stay to prevent conflicting decisions
  • The purpose of sub judice is to prevent duplicated, vexatious litigation and conflicting determinations

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The suit originating by plaint dated 28th March 2022 is stayed in its entirety under section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act pending the outcome of the appeal in the Court of Appeal
  2. 2.Prayers (a) and (b) of the Notice of Motion dated 1st April 2025 rendered moot
Jurisdiction invoked
Sections 3, 3A and 6 of the Civil Procedure Act, Chapter 21, Laws of Kenya; section 5(1) of the Judicature Act, Chapter 8

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Karebe Gold Mining Limited & another v Korir & 14 others (Environment and Land Case E009 of 2022) [2025] KEELC 6457 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in the extract (plaint dated 28th March 2022). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6457/eng@2025-09-29

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