Singh v Kingorani Investment Ltd (Land Case E015 of 2025) [2026] KEELC 4592 (KLR)

Although the plaintiff's title traces its origin to the exercise of a statutory power of sale, the court held that the historical origin of the transaction does not determine jurisdiction. The real question is the predominant issue before court. The suit seeks enforcement of proprietary rights arising from registered title - vacant possession, mesne profits, damages for trespass and injunctive relief - matters squarely within the ELC's jurisdiction under Article 162(2)(b) and Section 13 of the Environment and Land Court Act.

Relying on Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act and the IEBC v Maina Kiai decision, the court held that res judicata requires a prior decision heard and finally determined by a competent court. ELC No. E018 of 2024 was struck out for want of jurisdiction, which is not a determination on the merits, so the plea fails.

Applying Section 6 of the Civil Procedure Act and the KNCHR v Attorney General test, the court compared the two suits. In the High Court suit the plaintiff is sued as a purchaser whose title is impugned and the defendant is a co-plaintiff; the issues there concern the validity of the charge and statutory power of sale. Here the plaintiff, as registered proprietor, seeks possession against the defendant. Same factual matrix but different parties, capacities and issues.

The court held that whether the plaintiff complied with the statutory eviction notice requirements of Section 152E, and whether the suit infringes the defendant's constitutional property rights, depend on evidence about the plaintiff's acquisition of title, the legality of the defendant's occupation and the parties' proprietary interests. Such factual inquiries are improper in a preliminary objection under the Mukisa Biscuits doctrine.