[2025] KEBPRT 334 (KLR)

[2025] KEBPRT 334 (KLR)

The Tribunal found that the issues raised in the current application had already been litigated and determined in previous proceedings between the same parties, as evidenced by the annexed orders. The doctrine of res judicata, as codified in section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, precludes the Tribunal from entertaining the same issues again. The Tribunal emphasized that it is not an appellate court and cannot revisit matters already decided by courts of competent jurisdiction. Consequently, the preliminary objection was upheld, and the application was dismissed as res judicata and an abuse of process.

Citation
[2025] KEBPRT 334 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Mohamed Ahmed Musa; Respondent: Peris Njoki Kahara; Respondent: Sanjomu Auctioneers
Court
Business Premises Rent Tribunal
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
27 June 2025
Case Number
Tribunal Case E040 of 2025
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Injunction Application
Outcome
preliminary objection allowed; application dismissed with costs to landlord
Judges
P May
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Preliminary Objection, Injunctions, Distress for Rent
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Land and Property Res Judicata Preliminary Objection Injunctions Distress for Rent

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohamed Ahmed Musa

Applicant

Peris Njoki Kahara

Respondent

Sanjomu Auctioneers

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is barred by the doctrine of res judicata under section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act.
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear and determine the matter given prior proceedings between the same parties.
  3. 3 Whether the application for injunction is competent and properly before the Tribunal.

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the issues raised in the current application had already been litigated and determined in previous proceedings between the same parties, as evidenced by the annexed orders. The doctrine of res judicata, as codified in section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act, precludes the Tribunal from entertaining the same issues again. The Tribunal emphasized that it is not an appellate court and cannot revisit matters already decided by courts of competent jurisdiction. Consequently, the preliminary objection was upheld, and the application was dismissed as res judicata and an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection allowed; application dismissed with costs to landlord

Orders

  • The Preliminary Objection dated 17th March 2025 is allowed with costs to the landlord.
  • The Application dated 5th March 2025 and complaint of even date are dismissed.