Ragi & 3 others v Bosibori & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E038 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2280 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court dismissed an auction buyer's eviction attempt because he was asking for the same orders the court had already refused.
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 orders sought by the 4th Defendant/Applicant may lawfully issue at this stage of the proceedings
Key legal issues
#Whether summary judgment/eviction orders could issue at this stage of the proceedings
No; the application was res judicata and triable issues remain between the parties
The court treated the 4th Defendant's application in the context of his counter-claim as one for summary judgment of part of his claim, governed by Order 36. The established principle is that such an application fails where triable issues exist. The plaint and counter-claim raise competing claims of ownership and occupation requiring a full trial. Further, an identical eviction application had already been determined in the ruling of 31st July 2025, invoking section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Whether ownership of the suit property was conclusively determined by the High Court in Nairobi Civil Case E593 of 2021 (Allan Ragi v Kenya Women Microfinance Bank PLC)
No; what was determined was only an interlocutory injunction application against exercise of statutory power of sale
The court read the reported ruling and found that the High Court was dealing with a temporary injunction application to stop the chargee from exercising statutory power of sale, which was dismissed, and a review which was also declined. Ownership of the suit property was not an issue for determination in either application, so the auction purchaser's title was not conclusively settled by that litigation.
Whether the application is res judicata
Yes; the same eviction relief had been sought in an application dated 7th April 2025 and determined in the ruling of 31st July 2025
The court found that the current application sought the same eviction orders as the earlier application dated 7th April 2025, which the court had determined on 31st July 2025. Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act therefore statutorily barred the court from entertaining the fresh application, independently of the summary judgment analysis.
Legal principles established
#- An application for summary judgment will not be allowed where the defendant demonstrates a reasonable prospect of success or raises bona fide triable issues
- A dismissal of an interlocutory injunction application against exercise of statutory power of sale does not determine ownership of the charged property
- Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act bars a repeat application seeking the same relief already determined
Court orders
#- 1.The 4th Defendant's application dated 3rd November 2025 is dismissed
- 2.No orders as to costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original civil jurisdiction over land under the Environment and Land Court Act; application under Order 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules (summary judgment/eviction)
Relief refused
#Order of eviction of the 1st Plaintiff from Ngong/Ngong/35216 and confirmation of the notice of eviction dated 4th August 2025
The application is res judicata, a similar eviction application dated 7th April 2025 having been determined in the ruling of 31st July 2025, and summary judgment is not available as triable issues exist
Appointment of a court bailiff/auctioneer and police security for the eviction
Falls with the main application which was dismissed
Costs
No orders as to costs, considering that the 1st Plaintiff did not participate in the hearing of the application
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 upshot is that the 4th Defendant's application is dismissed but with no orders as to costs considering that the 1st Plaintifi did not participate in the hearing of the application.
This court is therefore statutorily barred under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act from entertaining the application.
I am not persuaded that this is a proper case for summary judgment.
A bona fide triable issue is any matter raised by the Defendant that would require further interrogation by the court during a full trial.
Issues in the judgment
#The judgment refers to the High Court case both as 'civil suit No. E593 of 2021' and as 'Nairobi Civil Case E593 of 2023'
Sitting date of 2026 with notice of eviction dated August 2025 and preliminary objection dated 2nd March 2026 is internally consistent but the neutral citation and case number are absent from the extract
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ragi & 3 others v Bosibori & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E038 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2280 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the extract (suit concerning Ngong/Ngong/35216). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2280/eng@2026-04-23
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.