[2018] KEELC 2025 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff's suit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the subject matter and parties were previously litigated in Kakamega Succession Cause No. 316 of 1988, which was heard and finally decided by a competent court. The court emphasized that the doctrine of res judicata is...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 2025 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mary Nyongesa Aloka; Defendant: Lazarus Sirengo Mukoyani
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 254 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- suit struck out as res judicata
- Judges
- NA Matheka
- Legal Topics
- Res Judicata, Abuse of Court Process, Land Recovery, Succession Proceedings
- 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
Mary Nyongesa Aloka
Plaintiff
Lazarus Sirengo Mukoyani
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Preliminary Objection / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the suit is barred by the doctrine of res judicata due to previous litigation between the same parties over the same subject matter.
- 2 Whether the plaint constitutes an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's suit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata because the subject matter and parties were previously litigated in Kakamega Succession Cause No. 316 of 1988, which was heard and finally decided by a competent court. The court emphasized that the doctrine of res judicata is intended to bring finality to litigation and prevent abuse of court process. As such, the preliminary objection was upheld and the suit was struck out with costs to the defendant.
Court Disposition
suit struck out as res judicata
Orders
- The suit is struck out as res judicata.
- Costs awarded to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAKAMEGA
ELC CASE NO. 254 OF 2016
MARY NYONGESA ALOKA.........................................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
LAZARUS SIRENGO MUKOYANI...........................................DEFENDANT
RULING
The defendant named herein, has raised a preliminary objection on matters of law against the plaintiff’s res judicata plaint which is only not fictitious, frivolous, vexatious and scandalous, but also an abuse of court process as well as a waste of this Hon. Court’s time. The case is res judicata Succession cause No 316 of 1988 in the matter of the estate of Wafula Aloka Opara touching on the same parcel of land and the same parties.
The plaintiff submitted that the matter was never adjudicated by a competent court as this is a land matter and is emotive in nature and the preliminary objection should not be allowed.
This court has considered the preliminary objection and the submissions therein. Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act Cap 21 provides as follows:
“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 court file, the plaintiff seeks to recover land from the defendant's piece of land title No. N. Kabras/Kivaywa/1210. The plaintiff discloses at paragraph 4 of the said plaint that there have been previous proceedings between her and the defendant over the same subject matter namely Succession Cause No. 316 of 1988. I find that this suit is res judicata in view of the said Kakamega Succession Cause No. 316 of 1988 which has been decided. The doctrine of res-judicata requires that there should be an end to litigation where a court of competent jurisdiction has rendered a conclusive decision. I find the preliminary objection has merit and I strike out this suit with costs to the defendant.
It is so ordered.
DELIVERED, DATED AND SIGNED AT KAKAMEGA IN OPEN COURT THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY 2018.
N.A. MATHEKA
JUDGE