Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Caselaw
AI-generated case brief
Case Brief · caselaw.co.ke
ELCStruck OutELCL MISC E072/25 RG· [2026] KEELC 2769 (KLR)

Njabai v Kenyan Macharia Karema & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E072 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2769 (KLR)

Environment and Land Court
12 May 2026
AKA. Y. Koross
2,195 words in judgment
View original judgmentRead on Kenya Law Watch case
AI-assisted case brief
·~9 min to read original · ~4 min brief

The bottom line

#

A landowner who skipped the proper objection process and filed duplicate applications in two courts lost his bid to stop a property sale, with costs awarded against him.

What this practically means

#

Executive summary

#
This ruling of the Environment and Land Court at Machakos (Koross, J) disposed of the applicant's notice of motion dated 23 July 2025, brought under Articles 10, 27, 40, 47, 160 and 165(3) of the Constitution, Sections 90, 96, 97 and 99 of the Land Act, and provisions of the Civil Procedure Act and Rules, seeking an injunction barring the respondents from selling, auctioning, transferring or interfering with L.R. No. 12715/9514 (I.R. 19772) and 12715/9515 (I.R. 119773). The applicant claimed he purchased the suit properties in April 2019 and took possession, that auctioneers broke in on 9 July 2025 claiming the land would be sold to settle a decree, and alternatively that any charge in favour of the 2nd respondent was a forgery effected without statutory notices. The 2nd respondent opposed, showing the properties were being advertised for sale under warrants issued in execution of a decree in Muranga CM's Court, MCLE No. 36 of 2019 (Alison Waceke Kamaru & Another v Kenyan Macharia Kirema & Another), and alleging forum shopping and non-disclosure. The court framed a single issue: whether the motion constituted an abuse of court process. It found the motion incompetent because the grievances should have been commenced by plaint and no statute authorised a notice of motion absent a substantive suit; that the applicant, aware of the Muranga execution proceedings, should have filed objection proceedings under Order 22 Rule 51; and that his filing of duplicative applications in this court and the Muranga court amounted to forum shopping and abuse of process. The applications dated 23 July 2025 and 4 September 2025 were struck out, the application dated 29 September 2025 was marked spent, the applicant was ordered to bear the 2nd respondent's costs, no costs were awarded to the non-participating 1st respondent, and the file was closed.

Key legal issues

#
01

Whether the motion constitutes an abuse of court process

Holding

Yes - the motion was incompetent, filed without a substantive suit, bypassed the proper objection procedure in the executing court, and formed part of a pattern of multiple and duplicative applications amounting to forum shopping

Reasoning

The court held that suits must be commenced per prescribed procedure; the applicant's grievances concerning statutory power of sale or his status as purchaser required a plaint. Aware of the Muranga execution proceedings, he should have filed objection proceedings under Order 22 Rule 51 rather than rush to this court. Filing similar applications in two courts and abandoning or failing to prosecute others showed improper, excessive and contradictory use of court process.

p. 11

Legal principles established

#
  • A suit must be initiated in accordance with the procedure stipulated by law; where grievances concern a statutory power of sale or purchaser's status, the matter ought to be commenced by way of plaint, and a notice of motion without a substantive suit or statutory authority is incompetent
  • A person claiming a legal or equitable interest in property attached in execution of a decree must pursue objection proceedings under Order 22 Rule 51 in the executing court, and a court cannot interfere with another court's lawful enforcement proceedings
  • Instituting multiple actions concerning the same subject matter in different courts against the same opponent on similar issues constitutes forum shopping and an abuse of court process

Court orders

#
  1. 1.The applicant's applications dated 23 July 2025 and 4 September 2025 are struck out
  2. 2.The applicant's application dated 29 September 2025 is marked as spent
  3. 3.The applicant shall bear the costs of the 2nd respondent for these applications
  4. 4.No costs awarded to the 1st respondent as he did not participate
  5. 5.The file is marked as closed
Jurisdiction invoked
Articles 10, 27, 40, 47, 160 and 165(3) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010 as invoked by the applicant's motion

Key timeline

#

Practical implications

#

Frequently asked questions

#

Cite this brief

#

Cite this brief

Caselaw, "Njabai v Kenyan Macharia Karema & another (Environment and Land Miscellaneous Case E072 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2769 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCL MISC E072/25 RG. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2769/eng@2026-05-12

Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.