Legal Advice Centre T/a Kituo Cha Sheria v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources & 5 others
The bottom line
#Kenya's Environment and Land Court struck out Kituo Cha Sheria's logging ban challenge because the same issue had already been decided in an earlier case.
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 Petition is res judicata ELC Petition No. E001 of 2023 - Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & 3 others; Katiba Institute & 6 others (Interested Parties)
- 2.Whether the lifting of the logging ban violated Articles 10, 42, 69, 70 and 73 of the Constitution
- 3.Whether the Respondents' nonfeasance is a violation of their constitutional and statutory obligation to protect forests in the Republic of Kenya
Key legal issues
#Whether the Petition is res judicata
The Petition is res judicata ELC Petition No. E001 of 2023 and was struck out
The court took judicial notice of the judgment in Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General [2023] KEELC 20583, in which Angote J declared the blanket lifting of the logging moratorium unconstitutional and ordered implementation of the 2018 Taskforce report. The parties substantially overlap and the principal issues - constitutionality of lifting the logging ban - were finally determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act therefore barred re-litigation.
Whether the lifting of the logging ban violated Articles 10, 42, 69, 70 and 73
Not determined - barred by res judicata
Having found the Petition res judicata, the court expressly declined to deal with the remaining issues, since the constitutionality of lifting the logging ban had been determined in the former petition.
Whether the Respondents' nonfeasance violated their constitutional and statutory obligations
Not determined - barred by res judicata
The court did not reach the merits of the nonfeasance claim because the second and third issues were in issue in the former petition between substantially the same parties.
Legal principles established
#- Res judicata requires identity of issues, parties or parties litigating under the same title, concurrence of jurisdiction and finality of the previous decision
- Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act bars a court from trying a matter directly and substantially in issue in a former suit heard and finally decided by a competent court
Court orders
#- 1.The Petition is struck out as res judicata ELC Petition No. E001 of 2023 (Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & 3 others; Katiba Institute & 6 others (Interested Parties))
- 2.The Court declined to deal with the other issues raised in the Petition
- 3.Each party to bear their own costs
The bench
#One judgment of the whole court — no separate or dissenting opinions.
Wrote the judgment
- Jurisdiction invoked
- Article 162(2) of the Constitution (Environment and Land Court jurisdiction); petition under Articles 10, 42, 69, 70 and 73
Relief refused
#Declaration that the presidential announcement lifting the logging ban was unconstitutional and without legal basis
Petition struck out as res judicata; the same issues were determined in ELC Petition No. E001 of 2023
Declarations on climate change impact, Respondents' nonfeasance, loss of legitimacy of office, and damages
Not determined because the Petition was struck out on res judicata
Costs
Each party to bear their own 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.
Based on the facts as presented while associating myself with the decisions cited and relying on section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, I find that the instant Petition is res judicata ELC Petition No. E001 of 2023-Law Society of Kenya v Attorney General & 3 others; Katiba Institute & 6 others (Interested Parties) and will proceed to strike it out and not deal with the other issues raised.
Each party to bear their own costs.
By dint of the provisions of section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, this Court is barred from determining the second and third issues which were in issue in the former Petition.
(i) the matter in issue is identical in both suits; (ii) the parties in the suit are the same; (iii) sameness of the title/claim; (iv) concurrence of jurisdiction; and (v) finality of the previous decision.
Issues in the judgment
#Preliminary Objection by 1st, 4th, 5th and 6th Respondents was never available to the court or parties yet is described as canvassed
Contradictory statements on which parties filed submissions
Petition dated 24th November 2023 said to raise same issues as a judgment delivered 12th October 2023
Key timeline
#Practical implications
#Frequently asked questions
#Cite this brief
#Cite this brief
Caselaw, "Legal Advice Centre T/a Kituo Cha Sheria v Cabinet Secretary, Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources & 5 others", Case Analysis (2026). ELC Petition No. E024 of 2023. Source: https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/5488/eng@2026-09-21
Suggested citation format for research notes or client memos. Always verify the original judgment before relying on any point.