Waithaka & 27 others v Montet & another (Environment and Land Case E022 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7987 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Nakuru court blocked no evictions but froze everything as-is, ruling the land case can proceed because the current claimants weren't part of earlier lawsuits.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Key legal issues
#Whether the suit is res judicata given prior litigation between the 1st and 2nd Defendants
The suit is not res judicata; the Plaintiffs were strangers to the previous suits and the subject matter has mutated.
The doctrine of res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act requires identity of parties and subject matter. Although the dispute has a long litigation history (Bahati Land Disputes Tribunal, CM's Court, High Court and ELC), all prior proceedings were between the 1st and 2nd Defendants. The Plaintiffs were not parties, and the claim now concerns Plots 640 to 668 on Plot No. 2 Solai Settlement Scheme, which the 1st Defendant says are subdivisions of LR No 10984/R - a mutated subject matter. The court cited John Florence Maritime Services and found the doctrine inapplicable.
Whether a temporary injunction should issue pending the hearing of the suit
A temporary injunction in the terms sought was not granted; instead the court ordered maintenance of status quo to preserve the suit land.
Applying Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules, the court noted the Plaintiffs' apprehension of losing the properties and the 2nd Defendant's plan to issue title deeds. Issuing titles without resolving the ownership dispute would be prejudicial to both the Plaintiffs and the 1st Defendant. Preservation of the suit land pending full hearing was the appropriate protective measure, with the matter to be heard within 30 days given its connection to ELC 102 of 2013.
Legal principles established
#- Res judicata does not apply where the plaintiffs in the current suit were not parties to the previous suits and the subject matter has mutated.
- The purpose of a temporary injunction is to preserve the substratum of the subject matter pending determination of the suit.
Court orders
#- 1.That the status quo be maintained pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
- 2.That the 1st Defendant's application dated 9th July 2025 is dismissed with costs in the cause.
- 3.That the matter be fixed for hearing within 30 days as it is related to ELC 102 of 2013, which is in the execution stage.
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court over disputes relating to land (Article 162(2)(b) Constitution; not expressly cited in the ruling)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Waithaka & 27 others v Montet & another (Environment and Land Case E022 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 7987 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2025). ELC Case (Nakuru) – Plaintiffs' Notice of Motion dated 6th May 2025 and 1st Defendant's application dated 9th July 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2025/7987/eng@2025-11-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.