[2016] KEELC 735 (KLR)

[2016] KEELC 735 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff's pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, as the dispute over whether the claimed portion of land forms part of Kisumu/Kadero Got Nyabondo/2159 could only be resolved after hearing evidence at trial. The court further held that the defendant's claim of res judicata was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] KEELC 735 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Careen Anyango Nyakeno; Defendant: Elisha Ombujo Tunga
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kisumu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 81 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
Legal Topics
Striking Out of Suit, Res Judicata, Cause of Action, Adverse Possession
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Striking Out of Suit Res Judicata Cause of Action Adverse Possession

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Careen Anyango Nyakeno

Plaintiff

Elisha Ombujo Tunga

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit

  1. 1 Whether the suit discloses a reasonable cause of action.
  2. 2 Whether the suit is res judicata under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  3. 3 Who should bear the costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff's pleadings disclosed a reasonable cause of action, as the dispute over whether the claimed portion of land forms part of Kisumu/Kadero Got Nyabondo/2159 could only be resolved after hearing evidence at trial. The court further held that the defendant's claim of res judicata was unsupported, as the only document produced was not in English or Swahili and no translation was provided, making it inadmissible. There was no evidence that any court of competent jurisdiction had previously determined the dispute between the same parties over the same subject matter. Consequently, the application to strike out the suit was dismissed as lacking merit.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 10th June 2014 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application are awarded to the plaintiff.