[2005] KEHC 2670 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent's claim of ownership of the suit land was res judicata, having been conclusively determined in H.C.C.C. No. 1172 of 1986, where an arbitration award dismissing the respondent's claim was adopted by the court and not overturned on appeal. The court held that the respondent's...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 2670 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Francis Gitonga Macharia; Defendant: Muiruri Waithaka
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 1641 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit as Res Judicata
- Outcome
- application allowed; suit struck out as res judicata
- Judges
- CN Mugo
- Legal Topics
- Res Judicata, Adverse Possession, Trusts in Land, Striking Out Pleadings
- 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
Francis Gitonga Macharia
Plaintiff
Muiruri Waithaka
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Strike Out Suit as Res Judicata
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent's suit is res judicata, having been previously heard and determined in earlier proceedings.
- 2 Whether the respondent's claim of ownership by adverse possession or trust can be sustained in light of prior determinations.
- 3 Whether the suit is frivolous, vexatious, or an abuse of the court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent's claim of ownership of the suit land was res judicata, having been conclusively determined in H.C.C.C. No. 1172 of 1986, where an arbitration award dismissing the respondent's claim was adopted by the court and not overturned on appeal. The court held that the respondent's attempt to relitigate the same issue constituted an abuse of the court process. Consequently, the application to strike out the suit was merited and allowed, as the matter had already been heard and determined between the same parties regarding the same subject matter.
Court Disposition
application allowed; suit struck out as res judicata
Orders
- The suit is struck out as res judicata.
- The applicant is awarded costs of the application.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
23 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT NAIROBI
CIVIL CASE NO. 1641 OF 1998
FRANCIS GITONGA MACHARIA…………….……… PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MUIRURI WAITHAKA……………………..…..………. DEFENDANT
RULING
This application is brought under Order VI Rule 13 1(b) (c) and (d) of the Civil Procedure Rules in a suit wherein the Respondent is claiming ownership in adverse possession of a parcel of Land known as L.R. No. KIINE/KIBINGOTI/NGUNGUINE/1029 comprising of five acres and in the alternative a declaration that the Applicant though currently registered as owner holds the same in trust for the Respondent. The Respondent alleges in his plaint that he bought the land himself and that the Applicant was registered as owner on the understanding that he would later transfer the said property to him. The Applicant in his defence claims to have bought the property himself and denies the Respondents claim of ownership.
The grounds in support of this application are that the Respondent’s suit is scandalous frivolous and vexatious, that it is meant to prejudice and embarrass the Applicant and that the same is an abuse of the process of the court since the same is res judicata. I have noted that the plea of res judicata appears in paragraph 2 of the Applicant’s defence. It is not disputed that prior to this suit, the Respondent has filed other proceedings in respect of the same suit land namely: H.C.C.C. No. 118 of 1979, which was dismissed for non attendance on the part of the Respondent (as plaintiff); H.C.C.C. No.1172 of 1986 (Originating Summons); Arbitration proceedings before the District officer Ndia Division with the assistance of four elders who in a majority ruling dismissed the Respondents claim of ownership to the suit premises, and filed the same with the Court; an application in the same suit in an attempt to set aside the arbitral award, which application was dismissed by the Hon. Mr. Justice Shields after hearing; Civil Appeal No.110 of 1997 seeking to set aside the dismissal order which too was refused.
A suit which is res judicata is obviously an abuse of the process of Court and falls squarely within the description of a suit which is frivolous, vexatious, prejudicial and embarrassing to the party sued. The Respondents objection to these proceeding is grounded on 3 main grounds of opposition, to wit; That
1) the application is misconceived and without merit
2) that no suit has ever been heard and determined between the parties herein concerning the subject matter
3) that the application is an afterthought brought primarily to delay the just conclusion of this suit.
In his submissions Mr. Kibicho for the Respondent argued that res judicata has not been proven under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act since H.C.C.C. No.118 of 1979 was dismissed without a hearing. He also submitted that in view of the fact that the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No.110 of 1997 found the issue of prescription to have been prematurely litigated, the same could validly be raised in other words, the present suit. Mr. Kibicho avoided submitting on H.C.C.C. No. 1172 of 1986 in which his client had claimed the same suit premises from the Applicant and in which an arbitration was conducted under the direction of the Court wherein the same was adopted fully with the hearing of an application by the Respondent to have the same set aside. In my considered view, the said adoption put to rest the issue of ownership of the suit premises since the Court of Appeal saw no reason to upset the same.
In view of the above I find that the Respondents’ claim of ownership of KIINE/KIBINGOTI/NGUNGUINE/1026 is clearly res judicata the same having been heard and determined in H.C.C.C. No.1172 of 1986. I do not find it necessary, in the circumstances, to consider whether a trust can be inferred herein or what the chances of such alternative relief would be since the present application is not brought under Order VI Rule 13 1(a).
In the premises and having considered the record, submissions by Counsel and all the facts of this case I find that the application does have merit and ought to succeed. I allow the same with costs.
Dated, Signed and Delivered at Nairobi this 29th day of April, 2005
M.G. Mugo
Judge
In the presence of:
N/A for Plaintiff/Respondent
Thiga h/b for Kaburu for applicant