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 judgment (application dated 17/6/2025)· [2025] KEELC 6876 (KLR)

Wasike & another v Eldoret Express Limited & 13 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6876 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
13 October 2025
810 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~3 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
The applicant moved the Environment and Land Court at Kitale by an application dated 17/6/2025 seeking to set aside the court's own ruling dated 17/6/2025, to reinstate the originating summons for hearing, and to stay execution of that ruling and the eviction orders issued therein. He alleged the ruling was fraudulently and misleadingly obtained because the respondents concealed stay orders issued on 11/6/2019 in Kitale HCC No. 17 of 2018 and 22 of 2022, which allegedly confirmed that Tawai Ltd had only two lawful directors, rendering other purported transactions void. The 1st respondent opposed, submitting the application was res judicata: the Court of Appeal had affirmed ownership of L.R. No. 5707/6 and ordered eviction, and the Supreme Court dismissed Tawai Ltd's leave application, upholding that decision. The court held that it had already considered all relevant materials, including the binding decisions between the same parties over the same subject matter, in the impugned ruling. Applying Article 163(7) of the Constitution, which embodies the doctrine of stare decisis, and citing Supreme Court authority on finality and adherence to precedent, the court held it had no choice but to comply with precedent and could not reopen matters already concluded at the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court; granting the reliefs would amount to overruling decrees of superior courts. The application was dismissed with costs on 13 October 2025.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the court could set aside its own ruling to relitigate matters conclusively determined by superior courts

Holding

No; the application was dismissed as res judicata and barred by stare decisis

Reasoning

The court had considered all relevant materials in the impugned ruling, including binding decisions on the same parties and subject matter that reached the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court. Article 163(7) constitutionally obliges the court to abide by those decisions, and the functus officio doctrine secures finality. Revisiting the ruling would amount to overruling superior courts' decrees.

p. 2
02

Whether the alleged fraud and non-disclosure vitiated the ruling

Holding

Allegations rejected; the ruling was arrived at after considering all relevant materials availed by the parties

Reasoning

The applicant alleged the ruling was fraudulently obtained through concealment of stay orders from Kitale HCC No. 17 of 2018 and 22 of 2022. The court found no basis, noting the impugned ruling expressly considered the binding decisions over the same subject matter between the same parties, up to the Supreme Court level.

p. 2

Legal principles established

#
  • Article 163(7) of the Constitution embodies stare decisis and binds lower courts to decisions of the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court
  • Once a decision is taken (subject to appeal) it is final and conclusive

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The application dated 17/6/2025 is dismissed
  2. 2.Costs to the 1st respondent/1st defendant

Authorities

#

Legislation

  • Constitution of Kenya, 2010Article 163(7)

Cases cited (6)

  • Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd -vs- Muiri Cofiee Estates Ltd & Others
    [2016] eKLR
  • Geofirey M. Asanyo & Others -vs- The Attorney General
    Supreme Court Petition No. 7 of 2019
  • Jasbir Singh Rai & Others -vs- Tarchalan Singh Rai & Others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Raila Odinga & Others -vs- Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & Others
    [2013] eKLR
  • Gatirau Peter Munya -vs- Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & Others
    [2014] eKLR
  • Kidero & Others -vs- Waititu & Others
    Petition No. 20 of 2014
Jurisdiction invoked
Not stated in judgment; application to set aside ruling of the ELC, decided under the doctrine of stare decisis per Article 163(7) of the Constitution

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Wasike & another v Eldoret Express Limited & 13 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6876 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). Not stated in judgment (application dated 17/6/2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/6876/eng@2025-10-13

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