Ngamia Consulting Co. (K) Limited v Lorogoi & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E063 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2950 (KLR)
The bottom line
#The Environment and Land Court struck out a Lodwar land suit because it re-fought a case already decided, and punished the plaintiff for hiding the earlier case from the court.
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 application dated 26/1/2026 for a temporary injunction and joinder of the Ministry of Lands as Interested Party should be granted
- 2.Whether the suit is res judicata having regard to the judgment in Kitale ELC No. 176 of 2016 delivered on 25/3/2025
- 3.Whether the plaintiff's suit and notice of motion are an abuse of the court process founded on material non-disclosure, warranting striking out
- 4.Whether the plaintiff has met the tests for a temporary injunction (prima facie case, irreparable harm, balance of convenience)
Key legal issues
#Res judicata
The suit is res judicata: the parties, title, reliefs and issues are in pari materia with those in Kitale ELC No. 176 of 2016, which was determined on the merits on 25/3/2025
The court traced the doctrine through John Florence Maritime, KCB v Muiri Coffee Estates, IEBC v Maina Kiai and recent Court of Appeal decisions. The former suit went through full trial, evidence and submissions, with findings that the plaintiff was incorporated after the alleged allotment, rendering it null and void. The plaintiff's contention that the former suit turned only on locus standi was rejected. The plaintiff, having appealed and failed to obtain extension, sought a second bite of the cherry.
Abuse of process / material non-disclosure
The plaintiff concealed the existence of the prior judgment and the failed appellate attempts in the amended plaint and the notice of motion, making the suit an abuse of court process
The pleadings were silent on Kitale ELC No. 176 of 2016 despite the plaintiff having been the 2nd plaintiff there and the deponent having testified as PW1. The amended plaint stated there was no other pending suit while omitting the concluded one. Following Bahadurali Ebrahim Shamji and Margaret Wangui Karugu, the court held a party must make the fullest disclosure of all material facts, and orders obtained by concealment will be set aside.
Temporary injunction
The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, irreparable damage or balance of convenience
Restating Giella v Cassman Brown, Mrao v First American Bank and Nguruman v Jan Bonde Nielsen, the court held the inquiry is not a mini-trial. Given the subsisting decree in the former suit and the plaintiff's non-disclosure, no prima facie case with probability of success was shown. The application dated 26/1/2026, in which the injunction and joinder were sought, was therefore not granted, the suit itself having been struck out.
Legal principles established
#- Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act absolutely prohibits a court from entertaining a suit raising issues already heard and finally determined by a competent court between the same parties or those claiming under them
- Res judicata extends to issues which by reasonable diligence the parties ought to have raised in the first suit; litigants must bring their entire claim at once, not in instalments
- Re-litigation of substantially similar parties, subject matter and issues constitutes an abuse of the court process
- Material non-disclosure to obtain an unfair advantage in seeking an equitable injunction disentitles the applicant from that relief
Court orders
#- 1.The application dated 6/3/2026 by the 1st defendant seeking striking out of the suit on account of res judicata is allowed
- 2.The suit brought by amended plaint dated 26/1/2026 is struck out with costs
- 3.File closed
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 under Article 162(2) of the Constitution (not expressly quoted; court exercised first-instance jurisdiction over land dispute at Kitale)
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining the defendants from entering, leasing, selling, evicting or dealing with Plot No. 824, Crusade Ground (Lodwar Town)
The suit was struck out as res judicata and the plaintiff failed the injunction tests; material non-disclosure disentitled it to equitable relief
Joinder of the Ministry of Lands, Physical Planning, Housing and Urban Management, Turkana County as Interested Party
Fell with the striking out of the suit and dismissal of the plaintiff's application
The reliefs in the amended plaint (declaration of ownership, survey and beacons, eviction of defendants, permanent injunction, certificate of lease, general damages for trespass)
The entire suit was struck out as res judicata, the same issues having been heard and determined on merits in Kitale ELC No. 176 of 2016
Costs
Costs of the suit awarded to the defendants - the suit is struck out 'with costs'
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 suit brought by an amended plaint dated 26/1/2026 is struck out with costs.
The court must guard against such a litigant and put a stop to the game by allowing the application dated 6/3/2026.
From the pleadings and documents brought by the defendants, it is crystal clear that the parties, title, reliefs, and the issues in the second suit are in Pari Materia to the issues in the previous suit.
Misleading the court to obtain an unfair advantage in the exercise of its discretion to grant an equitable injunction disentitles such an applicant from the relief of a temporary injunction.
Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act prohibits the court, in absolute terms, from entertaining a suit that raises issues already heard and finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction
File closed.
Issues in the judgment
#Inconsistent case number for the former suit: paragraph 17 refers to 'Kitale ELC No. 176 of 2026' while elsewhere the prior suit is Kitale ELC No. 176 of 2016
Paragraph 37 states the plaintiff claims encroachment of 'its Plot No. 456 by the defendants, who allege that the plot it occupies belongs to them as Plot No. 824', reversing the plot numbers pleaded elsewhere (plaintiff claims Plot 824; 3rd defendant owns Plot 456)
Inconsistent date of the amended plaint: paragraph 19 says the amended plaint is dated 21/2/2026 while paragraph 54 says the suit was brought by an amended plaint dated 26/1/2026 (also the date of the application)
Paragraph 15 refers to dismissal 'on a technicality' argument inconsistently: the court elsewhere (paragraph 46) held the former suit was determined on merits; paragraph 15 also records the finding that the alleged 'allocation of Plot No. 456 occurred before the plaintifi came into existence', whereas the plaintiff claims Plot No. 824
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ngamia Consulting Co. (K) Limited v Lorogoi & 3 others (Environment and Land Case E063 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 2950 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). Not stated in the judgment (Kitale ELC suit; prior suit Kitale ELC No. 176 of 2016). Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/2950/eng@2026-05-14
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.