Karoki v Karatina Municipal Council (Civil Appeal 45 of 1999) [2026] KEHC 5376 (KLR) (24 April 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 5376 (KLR) REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT AT NYERI CIVIL APPEAL 45 OF 1999 MA ODERO, J APRIL 24, 2026 BETWEEN KANYI KAROKI ...................................................................................... APPLICANT AND KARATINA MUNICIPAL COUNCIL .............................................. RESPONDENT RULING 1. Before this Court is the application dated 30th August 2025 filed by the Applicant Kanyi Karoki seeking the following orders:“ 1. 2. That Arphaxad Johnstone Kariuki Respondent be compelled and ordered to pay Kshs. 717,121.50.” The Application was supported by the affidavit of even date sworn by the Applicant. The matter was canvassed by way of written submissions. The Applicant filed the written submissions dated 14th November 2025 whilst the Respondent relied upon his submissions dated 16th December 2025. Analysis and Determination 3. I have considered the application before this Court as well as the submissions filed by both parties. 4. This court notes that a ruling over the same issue and facts was delivered on 18th July 2025 in which ruling the Court dismissed the Applicant’s claim to the monies held in an account no. 112547xxx at Kenya Commercial Branch, Nyeri Branch. 5. The Applicant has now come back to court with the same application relying on the same facts and documents only with a different narration and naming different parties. The facts in issue however remain the very same. https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5376/eng@2026-04-24 1
page 1 of 2
6. ‘Res judicata’ refers to the judicial principle against re-litigation of disputes that have been conclusively determined on merits. That doctrine is codified under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, cap 21 as follows: No court shall try any suit or issue in which the matter directly and substantially in issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, in a court. 7. The Supreme Court in John Florence Maritime Services Limited & another v Cabinet Secretary for Transport Infrastructure & 3 others [2024] KEHC 6648 (KLR) and Kenya Commercial Bank Limited v Muiri Coffee Estate Limited & another [2016] eKLR underscoring the significance of resjudicata stated as follows: “ 54. The doctrine of res judicata, in effect, allows a litigant only one bite at the cherry. It prevents a litigant, or persons claiming under the same title, from returning to court to claim further reliefs not claimed in the earlier action. It is a doctrine that serves the cause of order and efficacy in the adjudication process. The doctrine prevents a multiplicity of suits, which would ordinarily clog the courts, apart from occasioning unnecessary costs to the parties; and it ensures that litigation comes to an end, and the verdict duly translates into fruit for one party, and liability for another party, conclusively. …… res judicata entails more than procedural technicality, and lies on the plane of a substantive legal concept. 56. The learned authors of Mulla, Code of Civil Procedure, 18th ed 2012 have observed that the principle of res judicata, as a judicial device on the finality of court decisions, is subject only to the special scenarios of fraud, mistake or lack of jurisdiction (p 293): The principle of finality or res judicata is a matter of public policy and is one of the pillars on which a judicial system is founded. Once a Judgment becomes conclusive, the matters in issue covered thereby cannot be reopened unless fraud or mistake or lack of jurisdiction is cited to challenge it directly at a later stage. The principle is rooted to the rationale that issues decided may not be reopened and has little to do with the merit of the decision.” 8. I do agree with the Respondents that this application is res judicata the same having been determined vide the Ruling delivered on 18th July 2025. Indeed this application is a thinly disguised attempt to relitigate the issues that were already determined in the ruling of 18th July 2025. The application is frivolous and vexatious and amounts to an abuse of court process. 9. Accordingly I do dismiss the application dated 30th August 2025 and direct that the costs be met by the Applicant. Further the Applicant is barred from filing any other applications over this issue. If he is dissatisfied with the decisions of this court, he is at liberty to move to the Court of Appeal. DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN NYERI THIS 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026. ………………………… MAUREEN A. ODERO JUDGE https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/kehc/2026/5376/eng@2026-04-24 2
page 2 of 2