Ringsview Apartment Ltd v Vishnu Builders Ltd & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Application E183 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4433 (KLR)
The bottom line
#A Kenyan court threw out a property owner's bid for protection because the same request was already pending before the Court of Appeal, and made them pay the other side's costs.
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 application is res judicata
- 2.Whether the application is sub judice
- 3.Whether the application is an abuse of the court process
Key legal issues
#Whether the application is res judicata
The doctrine of res judicata fails; the Court of Appeal application E271 of 2023 is pending, the stay application in COACA E366 of 2025 was withdrawn, and the alleged dismissal in ELC 782 of 2014 was not evidenced by any order.
The court applied the conjunctive elements in IEBC v Maina Kiai. The first prior application (Court of Appeal Civil application E271 of 2023) was still pending and thus not finally determined. The second (Civil Appeal 366 of 2025) was withdrawn, not determined on merit. The third, in the trial court ELC 782 of 2014, had no order annexed showing it was heard and dismissed as alleged by the respondents. Since not all elements were satisfied, res judicata failed.
Whether the application is sub judice
The application is sub judice and contravenes Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act because the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in the pending Nairobi Court of Appeal Civil application E271 of 2023 between the same parties.
Applying the Supreme Court's criteria in the Kenya National Commission on Human Rights case, the court found the applicant had filed a similar stay application in the Court of Appeal (E271 of 2023) which was certified urgent but never heard, prosecuted, determined or withdrawn. The facts and reliefs were wholly similar. Allowing parallel proceedings would expose parties to multiplicity of suits and the risk of conflicting orders.
Whether the application is an abuse of the court process
Not separately determined; the court dismissed the application on the sub judice ground alone.
Although the court framed abuse of process as the third issue, the final disposition rested on sub judice. The respondent had argued the application was a stay of execution disguised as an injunction, filed in the wrong court contrary to Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Act, and made after inordinate delay, but the court did not rule on these grounds in its analysis.
Legal principles established
#- A court is barred from trying a matter that is pending before another court of competent jurisdiction between the same parties under the same title, to prevent conflicting orders
- Failure to cite the correct provisions of law is not fatal and would not warrant dismissal, in the spirit of Article 159(2) of the Constitution and Sections 1A and 1B of the Civil Procedure Act
- Where there is nothing on record showing a prior application was prosecuted, determined or withdrawn, the presumption is that it remains pending
Court orders
#- 1.The present application is dismissed for being sub judice to Nairobi Court of Appeal, Civil application E271 of 2023
- 2.Costs awarded to the 1st and 2nd Respondents
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Original/miscellaneous jurisdiction of the Environment and Land Court; applicant invoked Order 40 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules seeking injunction pending appeal
Relief refused
#Temporary injunction restraining respondents from attaching the applicant's property and interfering with quiet possession of the suit premises pending appeal
Application was sub judice as a similar stay application was pending before the Court of Appeal
Order directing the OCS Kileleshwa Police Station to facilitate enforcement of orders
Fell with the main application upon dismissal for being sub judice
Costs
Costs will be to 1st and 2nd Respondents.
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.
a) The present application is dismissed for being sub judice to Nairobi Court of Appeal, Civil application E271 of 2023.
The rationale behind the rule is to prevent situation of having conflicting orders emanating from two or more different courts over the same subject matter.
failure to cite the correct provisions of law is not fatal and would not warrant a dismissal.
Allowing parallel proceedings would expose the parties to multiplicity of suits and the real risk of conflicting orders by courts of concurrent jurisdiction.
There is nothing on record to show that the application dated 27th June 2025 was ever prosecuted, determined or withdrawn thus in the absence of such information the presumption is that the same must be pending.
Issues in the judgment
#Internal date inconsistency: submissions are dated in 2026 (20th April 2026 and 8th June 2026) yet the application and reply are dated 2025 (1st July 2025 and 14th October 2025); the reply of 14th October 2025 postdates the application of 1st July 2025, which is consistent, but the judgment also refers to an earlier application dated 27th June 2025 that is never otherwise reconciled with the notice of motion dated 1st July 2025
The third framed issue (abuse of court process) is never expressly resolved in the analysis before the final disposition
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Ringsview Apartment Ltd v Vishnu Builders Ltd & 2 others (Environment and Land Case Application E183 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4433 (KLR)", Case Analysis (2026). ELCLMISC E183 of 2025. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/4433/eng@2026-07-13
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.