https://new.kenyalaw.org/akn/ke/judgment/keelc/2026/3169
The dispute over the suit land had already been determined in Bungoma ELC Petition No. 5 of 2013, so continuing with this suit would serve no useful purpose; the suit was therefore marked as settled with no orders as to costs.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2026] KEELC 3169 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Dr Mulianga Ekesa; 1st Defendant: Talitia District Hospital; 2nd Defendant: Faddy Malaba
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment and Land Case 135 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application to Adopt Judgment and Mark Suit Settled
- Outcome
- Application allowed; suit marked as settled.
- Judges
- ["AK Bor"]
- Legal Topics
- Adoption of Judgment, Stay of Proceedings, Test Suit, Res Judicata Like Finality, Settlement by Prior Determination, Costs
- 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
Dr Mulianga Ekesa
Plaintiff
Talitia District Hospital
1st Defendant
Faddy Malaba
2nd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Application to Adopt Judgment and Mark Suit Settled
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the judgment in Bungoma ELC Petition No. 5 of 2013 should be adopted in this suit
- 2 Whether the present suit should be marked as settled after determination of the related petition
- 3 Whether any useful purpose would be served by proceeding to trial
Ratio Decidendi
The dispute over the suit land had already been determined in Bungoma ELC Petition No. 5 of 2013, so continuing with this suit would serve no useful purpose; the suit was therefore marked as settled with no orders as to costs.
Court Disposition
Application allowed; suit marked as settled.
Orders
- The dispute over the suit land having been determined in Bungoma ELC Petition No. 5 of 2013, no useful purpose will be served if this suit were to proceed for trial.
- The suit is marked as settled.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
Ekesa v Talitia District Hospital & another (Environment and Land Case 135 of 2013) [2026] KEELC 3169 (KLR) (20 May 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEELC 3169 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the Environment and Land Court at Bungoma Environment and Land Case 135 of 2013 AK Bor, J May 20, 2026 Between Dr Mulianga Ekesa Plaintiff and Talitia District Hospital 1st Defendant Faddy Malaba 2nd Defendant Ruling 1.Through the application dated 30/1/2026, the Plaintiff seeks to have the judgment delivered in Bungoma ELC Petition No. 5 of 2013 adopted in this suit in line with the ruling of 22/11/2017 and thereafter to have the suit marked as settled with no orders as to costs. The application was made on the grounds that this suit and Bungoma ELC Petition No. 5 of 2013 relate to the land known as West Bukusu/South Mateka/970 (the suit land) and that the parties in the two suits were the same or parties under whom they claim. An order was made in this suit on 22/11/2017 staying the suit pending the hearing and determination of the petition. Following the determination of the petition, the Plaintiff argues that it would be a waste of judicial time and the parties’ time if this suit were to be litigated over the same subject matter and parties or those under whom they claim. 2.The Plaintiff swore the supporting affidavit in which he deponed that the reliefs he sought in this suit were granted in ELC Petition No. 5 of 2013 and it will not serve any useful purpose for this suit to proceed to hearing. 3.The court directed parties to file short written submission on the application. Only the Plaintiff filed submissions. He submitted that the orders staying this suit pending the determination of the petition were granted with the consent of both parties. Having succeeded in the petition, the Plaintiff submitted that there is no need for this suit to proceed to trial. The Plaintiff relied on order 30 of Civil Procedure Rules regarding a test case and staying the other suit. He argued that he was claiming land that he purchased from the petitioners and that a determination having been made in the test suit, then it follows that the judgment in the test suit should apply in this case. 4.The dispute over the suit land having been determined in Bungoma ELC Petition No. 5 of 2013, no useful purpose will be served if this suit were to proceed for trial.The suit is marked as settled with no orders as to costs. DELIVERED VIRTUALLY AT BUNGOMA THIS 20TH DAY OF MAY 2026.K. BORJUDGEIn the presence of: -Ms. H. Wanyama holding brief for Mr. O. Bwonchiri for the PlaintiffCourt Assistant-Bett & MetrineNo appearance for the Defendants