Rongai Rhumba House Limited v Ariwi & 8 others (Environment and Land Case E131 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2925 (KLR)
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court refused to strike out a landlord-tenant property damage suit, ruling it raised new claims not covered by earlier tribunal proceedings.
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 Plaintiff's suit against the 1st Defendant ought to be struck out on the grounds of res judicata and/or want of jurisdiction
Key legal issues
#Whether the suit is res judicata in respect of BPRT Cause No. E149 of 2023 and High Court Civil Appeal No. E364 of 2023
The suit is not res judicata because the prior BPRT proceedings were confined to the validity of the tenancy termination notice, whereas the present suit raises fresh tortious and constitutional claims against additional parties.
Applying the conjunctive test in Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act as explained in IEBC v Maina Kiai, the court found that all elements were not satisfied. The BPRT proceedings were strictly limited to the tenancy termination under Cap 301, while the current suit introduces trespass, conversion, illegal eviction, constitutional violations under Articles 40 and 43, and eight additional defendants who were not parties to the earlier suits.
Whether this Court lacks jurisdiction in favour of the BPRT under Section 12(1) of Cap 301
Original jurisdiction properly lies with the Environment and Land Court because the claims sound in tort and constitutional violations, transcending the BPRT's statutorily restricted mandate.
While accepting the principle in Macharia v Kenya Commercial Bank that jurisdiction flows only from the Constitution or legislation, the court contrasted the BPRT's narrow statutory mandate under Section 12(1) of Cap 301 with the ELC's robust jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13(1) of the Environment and Land Court Act over disputes relating to the use and occupation of land. Tortious claims of trespass, destruction of property and unlawful eviction fall within the latter.
Whether the suit should be summarily struck out as an abuse of process
No; striking out is draconian and the suit raises substantive triable issues deserving a full hearing on the merits.
Relying on DT Dobie & Company (Kenya) Ltd v Muchina, the court held that a suit should only be summarily dismissed where it is plainly hopeless and discloses no reasonable cause of action. The Plaintiff's suit raises substantive and triable issues regarding multi-party liability, constitutional violations and tortious damages that transcend a mere landlord-tenant dispute; summarily dismissing it would violate access to justice.
Legal principles established
#- The elements of res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act are conjunctive and must all be satisfied
- A suit is not res judicata where the subsequent suit raises different causes of action and additional parties not before the former court
- The Environment and Land Court has original jurisdiction over tortious claims of trespass, destruction of property and unlawful eviction arising from land disputes
- Striking out a pleading is a draconian measure to be exercised only where the suit plainly discloses no reasonable cause of action
Court orders
#- 1.The 1st Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 31st October 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution of Kenya; Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act
Relief refused
#Striking out of the Plaintiff's suit against the 1st Defendant for being res judicata in relation to BPRT Cause No. E149 of 2023 and Nairobi High Court Civil Appeal No. E364 of 2023
The conjunctive test for res judicata was not met as the current suit introduces distinct causes of action in tort and constitutional violations alongside new defendants
Striking out of the Plaintiff's suit for want of jurisdiction on the basis that remedies lie exclusively with the BPRT
The claims involve tortious acts of trespass, destruction of property and unlawful eviction, over which the Environment and Land Court has original jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b)
Costs
The 1st Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 31st October 2025 is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff.
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.
Consequently, the 1st Defendant's Notice of Motion dated 31st October 2025 lacks merit and is hereby dismissed with costs to the Plaintifi.
I find that the Plaintifi's suit is neither barred by the doctrine of res judicata nor devoid of the requisite jurisdictional foundation before this Court. The claims presented deserve a full hearing on their merits.
Since the Plaintifi's claims involve alleged tortious acts of trespass, destruction of property, and unlawful eviction, original jurisdiction properly lies with this Court.
No suit ought to be summarily dismissed unless it appears so hopeless that it plainly and obviously discloses no reasonable cause of action, and is so weak as to be beyond redemption
Consequently, the conjunctive test for res judicata is not met in this instance.
Issues in the judgment
#The ruling inconsistently identifies the plaintiff's prior appeal case number, with the relief sought citing 'Nairobi High Court Civil Appeal No. E 364 of 2023' while the body refers to 'Civil Appeal No. E364 of 2023'
The number of additional defendants is stated inconsistently - the plaintiff is said to implead 'nine distinct Defendants' and that 'six of these Defendants (the 2nd to 7th Defendants) were not parties to the prior suits', yet elsewhere the suit 'impleads eight additional defendants (the 2nd to 9th Defendants)'
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Rongai Rhumba House Limited v Ariwi & 8 others (Environment and Land Case E131 of 2024) [2026] KEELC 2925 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Suit (unstated in ruling; relates to Ngong/Ngong/15560, Ongata Rongai). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2925/eng@2026-05-15
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.