[2016] KEHC 8241 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff's third application for a temporary injunction was based on the same facts and sought the same relief as two previous applications, both of which had been dismissed. The court held that the principle of res judicata applied, barring the plaintiff from re-litigating the same issue....
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 8241 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: John Peter Kamau Ruhangi; Defendant: Kenya Forest Service
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 141 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Third Injunction Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- MM Gitumbi
- Legal Topics
- Temporary Injunctions, Res Judicata, Land 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
John Peter Kamau Ruhangi
Plaintiff
Kenya Forest Service
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Third Injunction Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the suit property.
- 2 Whether the application is res judicata given previous similar applications were dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's third application for a temporary injunction was based on the same facts and sought the same relief as two previous applications, both of which had been dismissed. The court held that the principle of res judicata applied, barring the plaintiff from re-litigating the same issue. The repeated filing of similar applications amounted to an abuse of the court process. Consequently, the court dismissed the third injunction application with costs to the defendant, reiterating that the proper course for the plaintiff was to set the main suit down for hearing rather than filing repetitive interlocutory applications.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The Third Injunction Application dated 8th June 2015 is dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
ELC. CASE NO. 141 OF 2010
JOHN PETER KAMAU RUHANGI…………..………….…PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
KENYA FOREST SERVICE…………….……………..… DEFENDANT
RULING
Coming up before me for determination is the Notice of Motion dated 8th June 2015 (hereinafter referred to as the “Third Injunction Application”) in which the Plaintiff/Applicant seeks an order of temporary injunction restraining the Defendant from constructing, trespassing, entering or interfering with the parcel of land known as Land Reference No. 17942 located in Kiambu (hereinafter referred to as the “suit property”) pending the hearing and determination of this suit.
The same Plaintiff/Applicant did file the Notice of Motion dated 6th March 2014 (hereinafter referred to as the “Second Injunction Application”) in which he sought for the same orders namely orders of temporary injunction restraining the Defendant/Respondent from trespassing, entering, fencing or interfering in any manner whatsoever with the suit property pending the hearing and determination of this suit. I delivered the ruling on the Second Injunction Application on 4th July 2014 where I essentially dismissed the Second Injunction Application on the ground that it was res judicata, the Plaintiff having previously brought before this court the Notice of Motion dated 24th March 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “First Injunction Application”) seeking for a temporary injunction to restrain the Defendant from trespassing, entering or interfering with the suit property. The First Injunction Application was similarly dismissed.
It is not clear to this court why the Plaintiff/Applicant keeps bringing similar applications before this court instead of setting the suit down for hearing. For the same reasons as I gave for dismissing the Second Injunction Application, the Third Injunction Application is hereby dismissed with costs to the Defendant.
It is so ordered.
SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT NAIROBI THIS 28TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016.
MARY M. GITUMBI
JUDGE