[2003] KEHC 955 (KLR)

[2003] KEHC 955 (KLR)

The court found that the present suit was res judicata because the issues raised had already been determined in a previous suit (HCCC No 2470 of 1996) between the same parties, culminating in a consent order that resolved the dispute regarding the use and development of LR No 209/9063. The reliefs sought in the current suit were substantially the same as those previously litigated and settled. The court further held that, while the plaintiff had locus standi as a party to the consent order, enforcement of such an order should be by way of contempt proceedings in the original suit, not by instituting a new suit. The joinder of the 1st defendant, a director of the 2nd defendant company, was...

Citation
[2003] KEHC 955 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Garden Square Ltd; Defendant: Kogo; Defendant: Another (2nd Defendant)
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
16 January 2003
Case Number
Civil Case 1266 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection at Interlocutory Stage
Outcome
Suit and application struck out as res judicata with costs to the defendants.
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Locus Standi, Company Law Separate Legal Personality, Injunctive Relief, Consent Orders, Service of Process
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Res Judicata Locus Standi Company Law Separate Legal Personality Injunctive Relief Consent Orders Service of Process

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Garden Square Ltd

Plaintiff

Kogo

Defendant

Another (2nd Defendant)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection at Interlocutory Stage

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the present suit is res judicata in light of a previous suit and consent order between the same parties.
  2. 2 Whether the 1st defendant, as a director of the 2nd defendant company, is properly joined as a party to the suit.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff has locus standi to bring the present suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the present suit was res judicata because the issues raised had already been determined in a previous suit (HCCC No 2470 of 1996) between the same parties, culminating in a consent order that resolved the dispute regarding the use and development of LR No 209/9063. The reliefs sought in the current suit were substantially the same as those previously litigated and settled. The court further held that, while the plaintiff had locus standi as a party to the consent order, enforcement of such an order should be by way of contempt proceedings in the original suit, not by instituting a new suit. The joinder of the 1st defendant, a director of the 2nd defendant company, was...

Court Disposition

Suit and application struck out as res judicata with costs to the defendants.

Orders

  • The suit and the application for injunction are struck out with costs to the defendants.