Rajab v Abdalla & 6 others (Environment and Land Case E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1298 (KLR)
The bottom line
#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 present suit is res judicata by reason of Malindi ELC Case Number 11 of 2014
- 2.Whether the suit is res sub judice given the pending Malindi ELC Case Number 11 of 2014 concerning the same parcel of land
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit is barred as res judicata or res sub judice by Malindi ELC Case Number 11 of 2014
The application fails because the two suits share no common parties; identity of subject land alone does not trigger the doctrines
The court set out the three conditions for res judicata: the matter directly and substantially in issue in a former suit, the same parties or parties under whom they claim, and final decision by a competent court. Comparing the plaints, the plaintiff in ELC 11 of 2014 (Naima Sulumu Abdun) and the present plaintiff (Rishard Ramadhan Rajab for Andalus Limited) are different and independent, as are the defendants. The only common feature is parcel 4370/III/MN. Absent common parties, neither doctrine applies and the striking-out application lacks merit.
Legal principles established
#- Res judicata requires that the matter be directly and substantially in issue in a former suit, between the same parties or those under whom they claim, heard and finally decided by a competent court
- Two suits concerning the same parcel of land but with entirely different parties are not res judicata or sub judice
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 25th June 2025 is dismissed
- 2.Costs of the application awarded to the respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court under the ELC Act over land disputes; application under civil procedure rules for striking out
Relief refused
#Striking out of the present suit with costs for being res judicata or res sub judice
The two suits have no common parties; only the same parcel of land is mentioned in both, so the doctrine cannot apply
Costs
Application dismissed with costs to the respondents
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.
The doctrines of res judicata or res sub judice cannot apply in the present circumstances.
In the circumstances I find that though the suits are not therefore related in any other way save that the same parcel of land has been mentioned in both suits
Consequently, the application dated 25th June 2025 lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment does not name the parties in the present suit beyond the plaintiff, nor specify the statutory provision or rule under which the striking-out application was brought
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rajab v Abdalla & 6 others (Environment and Land Case E002 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 1298 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Application dated 25th June 2025 (ELC suit, plaint dated 23rd February 2023). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1298/eng@2026-03-03
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.