Githuka & another v Nairobi City County Government & 5 others (Environment and Planning Petition E048 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2586 (KLR)

The court distilled four ingredients: prior litigation raising identical claims, same parties litigating under the same title, competent court, and final judgment on the merits. Although prior litigation, common interest and competency were not disputed, the earlier ruling arose from an interlocutory injunction application and the suit remains pending, so the fourth ingredient fails.

Applying Section 6 and the Kirima conditions, the court found the Petition and the earlier suit arise from the same development on L.R. No. 3734/1459, raise substantially similar issues of approvals, public participation and environmental impact, with parties litigating under the same title and interest. The earlier suit remains pending before a competent court, warranting a stay of the later proceedings.

The duty of full and frank disclosure in ex parte applications applies whether facts are favourable or adverse. The prior proceedings and ruling were plainly material to the court's discretion in granting ex parte relief, and their non-disclosure warranted interference. The sub judice finding independently required discharge of the orders to avoid sustaining parallel proceedings.