Njoroge & 11 others v Teleposta Pension Scheme Registered Trustees & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E055 of 2025) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 1591 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out a damages suit over demolitions because the claim had already been decided in an earlier case.
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 current suit is res judicata Nakuru ELC Case No. 225 of 2012 and its consolidated files
- 2.If not, whether the 1st Defendant is in contempt of the court orders of 27th November 2025
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit was res judicata Nakuru ELC Case No. 225 of 2012 and its consolidated files
Yes; the suit was struck out. The titles underpinning the claim had been nullified in the 2020 judgment, and the damages claim flowed from the same subject matter and effectively the same parties/title.
The court applied the conjunctive elements of res judicata from Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and Dina Management. The 2020 judgment in the consolidated suits nullified the plaintiffs' Gilgil/Karunga Block 9 titles, declared Telposta the owner, and ordered eviction. The plaintiffs were litigating under extinguished titles; a claim for damages founded on that title could not be prosecuted in a fresh suit while the appeal was pending before the Court of Appeal. Adding parties or causes of action could not defeat res judicata.
Whether the 1st Defendant was in contempt of the status quo orders of 27th November 2025
Not determined; the issue fell away once the suit was struck out.
The court held that having found the suit res judicata, it need not determine the second issue. The contempt application, being part of the suit, was struck out together with the Plaint.
Legal principles established
#- The elements of res judicata are conjunctive and must all be established
- Res judicata is a matter of substantive law and jurisdiction, not a technicality
- Parties cannot evade res judicata by adding parties or causes of action in a subsequent suit
Court orders
#- 1.The Plaint dated 27th November 2025 struck out with costs for being res judicata Nakuru ELCLC No. 225 of 2012
- 2.The interim orders issued in the suit set aside
- 3.Costs of the suit awarded to the 1st Defendant
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court (Constitution and Environment and Land Court Act); suit lodged in the Environment and Land Court at Naivasha
Relief refused
#Declaration that the demolitions of 3rd and 11th November 2025 were unconstitutional and violated Articles 28, 29, 31, 39, 40, 43 and 47
Suit struck out as res judicata
General, special, aggravated and exemplary damages
Suit struck out as res judicata; damages claim dependent on a title already nullified
Permanent injunction against further demolitions and interference
Suit struck out as res judicata
Contempt application dated 15th December 2025
Not determined; fell with the struck-out suit
Costs
The suit and all applications were struck out with costs to the 1st Defendant; the interim orders were set aside
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 Plaint dated the 27th November 2025, alongside all the Applications herein, I find are incompetent and bad in law by virtue of being res judicata Nakuru ELCLC No. 225 of 2012, and I therefore need not make a determination of the other issue herein above stated but to strike out the suit with costs, which I now do, so that parties can ventilate their issue before the Court of Appeal where this matter is pending. The interim orders herein issued are set aside.
the doctrine of res judicata is not a mere technicality that can be cured by invoking Article 159 (1)(d) of the Constitution, but is a matter of substantive law and jurisdiction
once the root of their claim (the title) had been extinguished, any subsequent claim based on that title was barred, save through an Appeal to the Court of Appeal
It must be demonstrated that there was a former judgment which was final, it was on merit and by a court having jurisdiction and had identical parties, subject and cause of action.
Issues in the judgment
#Plaintiffs' Replying Affidavit dated '23rd January 2023' appears to be a typographical error given the suit was filed in November 2025
Internal inconsistency in dates within the same affidavit - supporting affidavit sworn 15th December 2025 but reference to Supplementary Affidavit sworn 17th November 2025
Inconsistent case number references for the BPRT proceedings (Case No. 129 of 2025, E129 of 2025 and E29 of 2025)
Chronological inconsistency - demolition alleged to have occurred on 'the night of 1st February 2025' when the surrounding events are in 2026
Order for restoration of status quo references '27th November 2027' rather than 2025
Inconsistent dates for replying affidavits of the 1st Defendant (13th January 2026 vs 10th January 2026)
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Njoroge & 11 others v Teleposta Pension Scheme Registered Trustees & 2 others (Environment and Land Case E055 of 2025) (Environment and Land) [2026] KEELC 1591 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Plaint dated 27th November 2025). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/1591/eng@2026-03-19
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.