[2018] KEELC 3099 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff's application for injunctive relief was substantially similar to a previous application that had already been determined by the court in a ruling dated 15th January, 2015. The plaintiff had not taken steps to fix the main suit for hearing since that ruling. As a result, the court...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 3099 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Annah Kakuvi Mwania; Defendant: Alfonce Mbithi Malombe; Defendant: Solomon Kyalo Mutiso; Defendant: Kyalo Isika
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Machakos
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 40 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Court Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed as res judicata
- Judges
- OA Angote
- Legal Topics
- Injunctions, Res Judicata, Land Ownership Disputes
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Annah Kakuvi Mwania
Plaintiff
Alfonce Mbithi Malombe
Defendant
Solomon Kyalo Mutiso
Defendant
Kyalo Isika
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Court Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with her possession of the suit properties.
- 2 Whether the application is res judicata in light of a previous ruling on a similar application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's application for injunctive relief was substantially similar to a previous application that had already been determined by the court in a ruling dated 15th January, 2015. The plaintiff had not taken steps to fix the main suit for hearing since that ruling. As a result, the court held that the current application was res judicata, as the issues raised had already been decided between the same parties. The application was therefore dismissed on this ground, without consideration of the merits of the injunctive relief sought.
Court Disposition
application dismissed as res judicata
Orders
- The application dated 17th May, 2017 is dismissed for being res judicata.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MACHAKOS
ELC. NO. 40 OF 2011
ANNAH KAKUVI MWANIA.....................................PLAINTIFF
V E R S U S
ALFONCE MBITHI MALOMBE....................1ST DEFENDANT
SOLOMON KYALO MUTISO .......................2ND DEFENDANT
KYALO ISIKA...................................................3RD DEFENDANT
RULING
1. In the Application dated 17th May, 2017, the Plaintiff is seeking for the following orders:
a. That a permanent order of injunction do issue against the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants restraining them either by themselves, agents, servants from selling, charging, transferring, entering into, remaining thereon, cultivating, sub dividing, clearing natural vegetation, fencing, grazing, putting up houses/structures evicting the Plaintiff or in any other way whatsoever interfering with the Plaintiffs quiet possession and occupation of Land Parcel Numbers MBIUNI/KABAA/62, MBIUNI/KABAA/61 and MBIUNI/KABAA/1 pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
b. Thatstatus quo be maintained pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
c. That the costs of this application be provided for.
2. The Application is premised on the grounds that the Plaintiff is the second wife of the 1st Defendant; that the suit property was acquired jointly by the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant; that the suit properties are fenced as one block and that the Plaintiff and her family have been continuously living and using the suit premises.
3. According to the Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant secretly sold the suit land to the 2nd Defendant in the year 2010; that the 2nd and 3rd Defendants have entered the suit land and have started sub-dividing the same and that the 1st Defendant is holding the suit land in trust for the benefit of himself and the Plaintiff.
4. The Defendants did not file any response to the Application. The Application proceeded by way of written submissions which were filed by the Plaintiff’s advocate. I have considered the said submissions and the authorities.
5. The Plaintiff is seeking for injunctive orders as against the Defendants. However, I have noted a similar Application was filed by the Plaintiff. The court declined to issue injunctive orders vide a Ruling dated 15th January, 2015. Although the Plaintiff was advised to fix this matter for hearing on a priority, she has never done so. Indeed, since 15th January, 2015 when the court delivered its Ruling, the Plaintiff has never fixed the matter for hearing.
6. In view of the Ruling of the court dated 15th January, 2015, I dismiss the application dated 17th May, 2017 for being res judicata.
DATED, DELIVERED AND SIGNED IN MACHAKOS THIS 25TH DAY OF MAY, 2018.
O.A. ANGOTE
JUDGE