Damah Alliance Limited v Muthee & another; Muthee (Plaintiff to the Counterclaim); Registrar & 8 others (Defendant to the Counterclaim) (Environment and Land Case E204 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 93 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan land court allowed a buyer to be added to an ongoing suit but refused a second attempt at a property injunction already decided earlier.
What this practically means
#Executive summary
#Questions the Court framed
#The issues the Court set itself to decide, in its own words.
- 1.Whether the intended 9th Respondent (Hidaya Alliance Group Limited) should be joined to the suit
- 2.Whether the plaintiff/applicant is entitled to an order of temporary injunction
Key legal issues
#Joinder of the intended 9th defendant
Hidaya Alliance Group Limited was joined as a necessary party with an identifiable stake in the suit property, having purchased it from the 8th defendant
Applying Order 1 rule 10(2) and the Technomatic principles, the court found the purchaser of the suit property a necessary party. The objection based on want of service was addressed through Order 1 rule 10(4), which requires amendment of the plaint and service of amended copies on the new defendant. No prejudice was shown by the respondents, and hearing had not commenced.
Whether the injunction prayer is res judicata
Prayer 3 was barred by res judicata, having been determined in ELC Petition No. E012 of 2023 (ruling of 31st January, 2024) and on appeal (dismissed 26th July, 2024)
Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act bars re-litigation of a matter directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties that was heard and finally decided. The identical injunction prayer had been dismissed by the court and by the Court of Appeal. Relying on Uhuru Highway Development Ltd, the court held there must be an end to interlocutory applications as much as to litigation.
Legal principles established
#- Res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act applies to interlocutory applications within a suit; a prayer for temporary injunction already finally determined cannot be resuscitated by a fresh application
- A person whose presence is necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate on all questions in the suit may be joined at any stage under Order 1 rule 10(2), and the failure to serve the new party is cured by amending the plaint and serving amended copies under Order 1 rule 10(4)
Court orders
#- 1.Hidaya Alliance Group Limited is joined in the suit as the 9th defendant in the counterclaim
- 2.Leave granted to the plaintiff/applicant in the counterclaim / 1st defendant in the main suit to amend his statement of defence and counterclaim dated 7th July, 2023
- 3.Costs shall be in the cause
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Sections 3 & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Order 1 rule 10(2) and (4), Order 8 rules 3 & 5 and Order 40 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Relief refused
#Prayer 3 - temporary injunction restraining dealings with LR Number 36/V11/275 Eastleigh (original) now Nairobi/Block 49/91
The same injunction application had already been heard and dismissed in ELC Petition No. E012 of 2023 and on appeal, making it res judicata
Costs
Costs shall be in the cause
Quotable passages
#Verbatim from the judgment, each located to the page it appears on in the official PDF — so these can be cited and checked directly.
Hidaya Alliance Group Limited is hereby joined in this suit as the 9th defendant in the counterclaim.
Leave is hereby granted to the plaintifi/ applicant in the counterclaim/ and or the 1st defendant in the main suit to amend his statement of defence and counterclaim dated 7th July, 2023.
Costs shall be in the cause.
In sum, prayer no. 3 was already determined and thus res judicata.
the cure to ensure that the intended 9th defendant/respondent participates in these proceedings is through amendment of the plaint
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment alternately refers to the applicant as the '1st defendant/applicant' and the '1st plaintifi/applicant in the counterclaim', and the supporting affidavit is described as that of the '1st plaintifi/applicant' whereas the motion is by the '1st defendant/applicant in the counterclaim'
The Court of Appeal dismissal is referred to inconsistently as 'Appeal No. E063 of 2024' and 'Nairobi Civil Appeal No. E063 of 2024' while elsewhere it is described as 'Civil Application No. E063 of 2024'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Damah Alliance Limited v Muthee & another; Muthee (Plaintiff to the Counterclaim); Registrar & 8 others (Defendant to the Counterclaim) (Environment and Land Case E204 of 2023) [2026] KEELC 93 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Notice of Motion dated 26th June, 2025 (main suit case number not stated in the judgment). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/93/eng@2026-01-22
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.