[2020] KEELC 3066 (KLR)
Upon reviewing the pleadings and proceedings, the court found that the parties and subject matter in the present suit are identical to those in Kakamega CMCC No. 365 of 2013. The court determined that the issues raised in this suit are either pending determination (sub judice) or have already been determined (res...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 3066 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Evans Adam Pessa Muluka; Defendant: Dorcas Christine Sande
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 186 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Judgment
- Outcome
- suit struck out as res judicata and/or sub judice
- Judges
- NA Matheka
- Legal Topics
- Res Judicata, Sub Judice, Trespass to Land, Matrimonial Property, Vacant Possession
- 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
Evans Adam Pessa Muluka
Plaintiff
Dorcas Christine Sande
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit is barred by the doctrines of res judicata or sub judice due to pending or previously determined suits involving the same parties and subject matter.
- 2 Whether the defendant unlawfully trespassed onto the property known as L.R. No. Kakamega Town Block 111/Plot 140.
- 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to vacant possession, damages for trespass, costs, and interest.
Ratio Decidendi
Upon reviewing the pleadings and proceedings, the court found that the parties and subject matter in the present suit are identical to those in Kakamega CMCC No. 365 of 2013. The court determined that the issues raised in this suit are either pending determination (sub judice) or have already been determined (res judicata) in the previous or pending suits. Consequently, the court held that it is barred from proceeding with the matter under Sections 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act. The suit was therefore struck out without consideration of the substantive merits, and no orders as to costs were made.
Court Disposition
suit struck out as res judicata and/or sub judice
Orders
- This suit is struck off with no orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT KAKAMEGA
ELC CASE NO. 186 OF 2014
EVANS ADAM PESSA MULUKA..............................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
DORCAS CHRISTINE SANDE...............................................DEFENDANT
JUDGEMENT
The plaintiff avers that on or about the 23rd of February, 2012, the defendant without consent of the said Eric Mwenda Muluka, unlawfully and without permission made entry into Eric Mwenda Muluka’s property known as L.R. No. Kakamega Town Block 111/Plot 140 and took possession of it. The plaintiff avers that the said acts amounted to a trespass onto Eric Mwenda Muluka’s property by the defendant and the trespass is continuing. By reason of the defendant’s trespass, Erick Mwenda Muluka has been deprived of the use and the enjoyment of the said property and has thereby suffered loss and damage. The defendant since then has failed, neglected and or refused to adhere to the wishes of Eric Mwenda Muluka to vacate the premises illegally occupied by her. Despite demand and notice to vacate Eric Mwenda Muluka’s premises by Eric Mwenda Muluka through his advocates, the defendant has refused, failed and/or neglected to vacate the said premises. Eric Mwenda Muluka prays for judgment against the defendant for:-
(a) Vacant possession of Eric Mwenda Muluka’s property.
(b) Damages for trespass at the rate of Ksh. 45,000/= per month from February, 2012 to date of judgment.
(c) Costs of this suit.
(d) Interest in (b) and (c) above.
That the defendant denies that one Eric Mwendwa was the registered owner of property known as No. Kakamega town Block 111/Plot 140 at all material times or at all and further denies that she without the consent of the said Eric Mwendwa, unlawfully and without permission made entry into Eric Mwenda’s property. The defendant avers that she is the lawful wife of the plaintiff and that she lawfully entered property known as No. Kakamega Town Block 111/Plot 140 on or about 23rd February, 2012 in the company of and with authority of the plaintiff, who was the lawful registered owner and who personally allowed defendant to reside therein as her matrimonial home and that defendant subsequently registered a restriction on the title to that effect. The defendant further avers that plaintiff appears to be changing his mind and his affection to her and has been engaging in various illegal actions against defendant, to wit to mention only a few, subjecting defendant toplaintiff is being dishonest in falsely swearing in the verifying affidavit that there is no other suit pending in this court or at all, and that there have been no previous proceedings in any court on the same subject matter, involving the same parties herein when he knows that he, plaintiff filed High Court Civil Suit No. 11 of 2013 against the defendant and he, plaintiff knows very well that there is pending in Kakamega CMCC No. 365 of 2013 in which defendant has suit the said Eric Mwendwa for illegally sending Auctioneers to proclaim moveable property in the same parcel No. Kakamega Town/Plot 111/140 where Eric’s title to the subject land has been challenged. The issue as to whether or not this suit is res judicata or sub judice is therefore a preliminary issue to be determined even before going into the merits and the demerits of the case. Section 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 provides as follows:
Section 6.
“No court shall proceed with the trial of any suit or proceedings in which the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue in a previously instituted suit or proceedings between the same parties, or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigate under the same title, where such suit or proceedings is pending in the same or any other court having jurisdiction in Kenya to grant the relief claimed”
Section 7.
“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 competent to try such subsequent suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised, and has been heard and finally decided by such court.”
I have perused the proceedings and pleadings of the above mentioned cases filed in court and indeed find that the parties are similar and so is the subject matter. I find that this matter is sub judice and/or res judicata Kakamega CMCC No. 365 of 2013. This suit is struck off with no orders as to costs.
It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED THIS 16THDAY OF APRIL 2020.
N.A. MATHEKA
JUDGE