[2022] KEELC 3388 (KLR)
The court found that although the subject properties and the general dispute regarding their sale had been previously litigated in the Chief Magistrate's Court, the parties in the earlier suits were not identical to those in the present suit. The previous suits were filed by the borrower (Unity Micro Investment Ltd)...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEELC 3388 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: David Kasivu Maveke; Plaintiff: Samuel Masila Munyao; Defendant: Unity Micro Investment Ltd; Defendant: Family Bank Ltd
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case E012 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection (res Judicata) and Transfer
- Outcome
- Suit not struck out as res judicata; transferred and consolidated with related suits.
- Judges
- M Sila
- Legal Topics
- Res Judicata, Statutory Notice Requirements, Injunctive Relief, Transfer of Suit
- 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
David Kasivu Maveke
Plaintiff
Samuel Masila Munyao
Plaintiff
Unity Micro Investment Ltd
Defendant
Family Bank Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection (res Judicata) and Transfer
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the present suit is barred by the doctrine of res judicata due to previous suits involving the same subject properties.
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs, as property owners, have a distinct cause of action from the borrower regarding statutory notice requirements.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that although the subject properties and the general dispute regarding their sale had been previously litigated in the Chief Magistrate's Court, the parties in the earlier suits were not identical to those in the present suit. The previous suits were filed by the borrower (Unity Micro Investment Ltd) against the lender (Family Bank Ltd), while the current suit was brought by the property owners. The court held that the property owners' cause of action, based on the alleged failure to issue statutory notices to them, is distinct from the borrower's cause of action. Therefore, the doctrine of res judicata does not bar the present suit. However, to avoid multiplicity of...
Court Disposition
Suit not struck out as res judicata; transferred and consolidated with related suits.
Orders
- This suit is transferred to the Chief Magistrate’s Court Mombasa.
- This suit is to be consolidated with Mombasa CMCC No. 1422 of 2021 and Mombasa CMCC No. 1451 of 2021 for disposal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
25 paragraphs
Maveke & another v Unity Micro Investment Ltd & another (Environment & Land Case E012 of 2022) [2022] KEELC 3388 (KLR) (20 July 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEELC 3388 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the Environment and Land Court at Mombasa
Environment & Land Case E012 of 2022
M Sila, J
July 20, 2022
Between
David Kasivu Maveke
1st Plaintiff
Samuel Masila Munyao
2nd Plaintiff
and
Unity Micro Investment Ltd
1st Defendant
Family Bank Ltd
2nd Defendant
Ruling
1. This suit was commenced through a plaint filed on 4 February 2022. In the plaint, it is pleaded that the 1st plaintiff is the registered proprietor of Apartment No. 4 C within the title Mombasa/Block XI/178 in Mombasa, while the 2nd plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the land parcel LR No. 5813 (Original No. 976/33/5) Section I, Mainland North (hereinafter referred to as “the suit properties” ). It is averred that the plaintiffs allowed the 1st defendant (Unity Micro Investment Limited) to use the suit properties as security for a loan offered by the 2nd defendant (Family Bank Limited). It is pleaded that the 1st defendant moved the Chief Magistrate’s Court to restrain the 2nd defendant from selling the suit properties. The plaintiffs state that the 2nd defendant issued to them a 90 day notice of their intention to sell the suit properties. In this suit, they wish to have a declaration that the 90 day notice is unlawful, a permanent injunction to stop the defendants from dealing with the suit properties, and costs.
2. The 2nd defendant has raised issue that this suit is res judicata the suits Mombasa CMCC No. 1422 of 2021 and Mombasa CMCC No. 1451 of 2021. I directed the plaintiffs to show cause why this suit should not be dismissed for being res judicata but nothing was filed to show cause, and counsel for the plaintiffs failed to appear and make any submissions on the matter.
3. Nevertheless, I have looked up at the pleadings in both Mombasa CMCC No. 1422 of 2021 and Mombasa CMCC No. 1451 of 2021. The plaintiff in the suit Mombasa CMCC NO. 1422 of 2021 is Unity Micro Investment Limited and the defendant is Family Bank Limited. In that suit, the plaintiff seeks orders to stop the sale of the Apartment No. 4C on the basis that the defendant has threatened to sell it, yet she is not in default. In the suit Mombasa CMCC No. 1451 of 2021, the plaintiff is again Unity Micro Investment Limited and the defendant is Family Bank Limited. That plaint seeks to stop the defendant from selling the property LR No. 5813 (Original NO. 976/33/5) Section I, Mainland North. The two files were consolidated through a ruling made on 28 September 2021. There was an application for injunction filed which was decided in a ruling delivered on 24 January 2022. The application was dismissed with the court noting that there is evidence of default by the plaintiff therein, who is clearly the borrower but not owner of the suit properties.
4. The plaintiffs in the matter before me are the owners of the suit properties and they have now filed this suit. From what I can see, their cause of action is based on the failure to issue the requisite statutory notice to them. It may be that the borrower’s cause of action and the property owners’ cause of action is different. The parties (borrower and property owners) are different and it cannot be said that one is suing on behalf of the other. I do not think that the fact that the borrower has filed suit means that the owners of the suit properties are barred from filing suit. I therefore hesitate to strike out this suit as res judicata.
5. I however order that this suit be transferred to the Chief Magistrate’s Court Mombasa, and it be consolidated with the suits Mombasa CMCC No. 1422 of 2021 and Mombasa CMCC No. 1451 of 2021, for disposal. The Magistrate’s Court will deal with all issues arising out of the three suits.
6. I make no orders as to costs.
DATED AND DELIVERED THIS 20 DAY OF JULY 2022. JUSTICE MUNYAO SILAJUDGE, ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MOMBASA.