Musyoka v Rafiki Microfinance Bank Ltd & 2 others (Commercial Case E002 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12385 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling)

Musyoka v Rafiki Microfinance Bank Ltd & 2 others (Commercial Case E002 of 2025) [2026] KEHC 12385 (KLR) (31 July 2026) (Ruling) Neutral citation: [2026] KEHC 12385 (KLR) Republic of Kenya In the High Court at Makueni Commercial Case E002 of 2025 TM Matheka, J July 31, 2026 Between Virginia Munyiva Musyoka Plaintiff and Rafiki Microfinance Bank Ltd 1st Defendant Shadrack Mutua Mutuku 2nd Defendant David Mutuku Kyuli 3rd Defendant Ruling 1.The application before me is dated 05/08/2025 and is brought under Sections 1A, 1B & 3A of the Civil Procedure Act, Orders 40 & 51 of the Civil Procedure Rules. It seeks the following orders;a.Spent.b.Spent.c.That this honorable court be pleased to issue an injunction to restrain the Defendants themselves or their agents from selling or disposing off suit land pending the hearing and determination of this sit.d.That costs do abide the application. The Application 2.The application is supported by the grounds on its face and the Applicant’s Affidavit sworn on the same day. She deponed that she is the Applicant and the legal wife of the 3rd Respondent herein. That, they were married in 1980 and have 5 children. A copy of affidavit is marked VMM1. That, they have established a matrimonial home on Mbooni/Mutitu/1690. Copies of photographs are marked VMM2. 3.That, sometimes on 29/07/2025, she learnt that the 1st Respondent had advertised to sell their matrimonial property by 13/08/2025 as per the notices marked VMM3. That, she further learnt that her husband used their matrimonial property to secure a loan of kshs 500,000/= for the 2nd Respondent. 4.That, she learnt from the 2nd Respondent that he had already paid kshs 500,000/= though he only received kshs 420,000/= as per copies of statements marked VMM4. That, the matrimonial land was used without her consent, her entire family. That, the transaction is oppressive as the interest is more than the principal debt. 5.That, the valuation of the property has not been done but the 1st Respondent wants to dispose off their only home at a throw away price. That, a demand letter was issued but ignored. 6.The 2nd and 3rd Respondents swore affidavits titled ‘Replying Affidavits’ but after looking at them, they are essentially in support of the application. 7.The 2nd Respondent, Shadrack Mutua Mutuku, swore an affidavit on 26/08/2025 where he deponed that he was given a loan of kshs 420,000/= and has already paid over kshs 500,000/= over and above the principal amount given. Copies of statements are marked SMM1.That, the amount being demanded is unwarranted, exaggerated and violates the in duplum rule where interest exceeds the principal amount. 8.That, the purported exercise of statutory power of sale is therefore based on non-existent and illegal amounts and it is fair that the alleged ale be declared illegal. 9.The 3rd Respondent, David Mutuku Kyuli, swore an affidavit on 16/09/2025 where he deponed that he never received any money from the bank and has never visited their offices and never applied for any loan. That, when he received the notice to sell his land, he visited the offices and was told that the family land had been used as security. That, they filed a case at Tawa to stop the sale vide Tawa RMCC No. 4 of 2025 but the case has since been withdrawn as per the notice marked DMK 1. 10.That, he resides on the suit land with his family and the bank did not follow due process in using the title as security or purporting to sell the same. That, his wife’s consent was not sought and it is fair that the intended statutory sale be declared null and illegal. The Response 11.The Application is opposed through the Replying Affidavit of the 1st Respondent sworn by John Langat on 19/08/2025 and the grounds of opposition dated 19/08/2025. 12.He deponed that he is the 1st Respondent’s debt recovery manager, duly authorized by the 1st Respondent (the bank) hence competent to swear the affidavit. That, the application and entire suit are sub-judice, an absolute abuse of the court process, frivolous, unfounded, bad in law and a complete waste of this court’s time which has no jurisdiction to hear the matter. 13.That, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents filed an application dated 06/05/2025 and main suit of even date against the bank before the Tawa Magistrates Court which is currently pending. The application and suit are exhibited as JL-1. That, in the said application, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents sought injunctive orders to restrain the bank from selling the property known as Mbooni/Mutitu/1690 (the suit property) pending the hearing and determination of the main suit therein. 14.That, the Tawa court heard the said application, which raised similar issues to the present one and delivered a ruling (marked JL-2) on 01/07/2025 whereby it dismissed the said application and held that the bank had complied with all requisite statutory steps including service of the statutory notices on the Plaintiff/Applicant herein as the spouse to the 3rd Respondent herein. 15.That, soon thereafter, the matter was scheduled for pre-trial on 04/08/2025 whereby the bank had complied and sought a hearing date but the 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ counsel intimated his clients’ intention to withdraw the suit. That, the court directed filing of the same and scheduled the matter for mention on 11/08/2025. 16.That, on 11/08/2025, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents’ counsel intimated that he no longer had instructions to act in the matter and proceeded to file a notice (marked JL-3) to cease acting which was scheduled for hearing on 25/08/2025. 17.That, clearly, the 2nd and 3rd Respondents withdrew instruction from the said advocate and instructed the present advocates on record so as to institute the present suit through the Applicant herein, so as to defeat the ends of justice. That, the Applicant’s suit is riddled with fallacies, non-disclosure of material facts and utter misrepresentation all geared towards hoodwinking this court to obtain the injunctive orders sought. 18.That, according to advice from the bank’s advocates, this court has no jurisdiction to hear the matter owing to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction as the suit property is valued at kshs 2,000,000/= as per the valuation (Report marked JL-4) undertaken on 14/02/2025 by Kenstate Valuers on instructions of the 1st Respondent. That, even if a valuation was undertaken today, the value would not go beyond kshs 20,000,000/= in order to meet the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. 19.That, according to advice from the bank’s advocates, the cause of action before this court is substantially and directly in issue before the magistrate’s court thus making the present suit an academic exercise initiated to defeat the ends of justice. 20.That, the issues raised herein involving issuance of spousal consents, loan amount advanced, valuation of the suit property et al can only be addressed before the magistrate’s court as the suit with competent jurisdiction. That, the existence of the suit at the magistrate’s court bars any further proceedings over the same issues including before this court and between the same parties. 21.That, the present application is res judicata on the basis that the magistrate’s court being of competent jurisdiction handled a similar application seeking similar orders and delivered a ruling which is not impugned. That, the Applicant’s conduct should be nipped in the bud and called out harshly by this court as it is a waste of judicial time and resources. 22.The 1st Respondent also filed the following grounds of opposition dated 19/08/2025;a.That the instant application is res judicata, on the basis that the magistrates court in Tawa CMCC No. E157 of 2025, David Mutuku Kyuli & Shadrack Mutua Mutuku – vs- Rafiki Microfinance Bank Ltd & Kennedy Nyaga T/A Garth Day Year Auctioneers, being of competent jurisdiction, heard a similar application seeking similar orders between the same parties or between parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title, and delivered its ruling which is not impugned.b.That the instant suit is sub judice seeing as the suit in the magistrate’s court as referenced above addresses similar issues, seeking similar orders, and the same is pending hearing and determination.c.That this Honourable Court lacks the jurisdiction to hear and determine the instant application as doing so will be in outright contravention of the doctrines of sub judice and res judicata as espoused under Sections 6 and 7 of the Civil Procedure Act respectively.d.That further, this Honourable Court also lacks the pecuniary jurisdiction to adjudicate over this matter on the premise that the value of the subject matter is Kshs. 2,000,000/= which is way below the established pecuniary jurisdiction of this court.e.That as was held in the celebrated case of Owners of the Motor Vessel "Lillian S" v Caltex Oil (Kenya) Ltd, jurisdiction is everything and without it, the court must down its tools in respect of this matter.f.That in light of the foregoing, it is demonstrable that the Plaintiff/Applicant’s application and their entire suit is vexatious, fallacious, unmerited and abuse of this Honourable Court’s process and warrants immediate dismissal with costs. 23.The application was canvassed through written submissions. The Applicant’s Submissions 24.It was submitted that a matrimonial property being Mbooni/Mutitu/1690 was used as collateral without the involvement of the wife-the Plaintiff herein. That, the money was not advanced to the husband, 3rd Respondent, but to the 2nd Respondent who is not the registered owner. That, nonetheless, the husband repaid the entire principal amount received. 25.That, despite all that, the bank proceeded to issue a notice of sale for the property demanding accrued interest of over kshs 600,000/= which is above the principal amount advanced. 26.Reliance was placed on section 79(3) of the Land Act for the submission that charge of a matrimonial property is only valid if spousal consent is executed. 27.It was submitted that the bank did not produce any evidence to show that the matter is res judicata or sub judice. That, it has not been controverted or denied by all Respondents that the Applicant is a wife of the 3rd Respondent and that the suit land is matrimonial property. 28.It was submitted that there is need to preserve the suit land pending the determination of the suit herein. The 1st Respondent’s Submissions 29.It was submitted that the application is res judicata as all the conditions under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act have been met. That, the orders sought by the Applicant in both applications being application dated 06/05/2025 at Tawa Law Courts (Tawa application) and application dated 05/08/2025 in this Honourable Court are similar being that they are both seeking injunctive orders to restrain the Bank Limited from selling the suit land. 30.That, the orders sought in the Tawa application are premised on grounds entailing spousal consent; service of statutory notices; repayment of the loan amount advanced; valuation of the suit property and the suit property being matrimonial property. That, on the other hand, the orders sought in the application herein are premised on similar grounds involving the suit property being matrimonial property, obtaining of the spousal consent, the loan amount is also in contention and valuation of the suit property. It was contended that these grounds have been conclusively addressed before the Tawa Law Courts MCCC E157 of 2025 vide a ruling delivered on 01/07/ 2025. 31.Reliance was placed on Gladys Nduku Nthuki -vs- Letshego Kenya Limited; Mueni Charles Maingi (Intended Plaintiff) (2022) eKLR for the submission that the mere addition of parties in a subsequent suit does not necessarily render the doctrine of res judicata inapplicable since a party cannot escape the said doctrine by simply undertaking a cosmetic surgery to his pleadings. Consequently, it was submitted that the issues herein were directly and substantially in issue in the Tawa application. 32.It was submitted that the parties in the Tawa application are Shadrack Mutua Mutuku & David Mutuku Kyuli -vs- Rafiki Microfinance Bank Ltd and Kennedy Nyaga while the parties herein are Virginia Munyiva Musyoka -vs- Rafiki Microfinance Bank Limited, Shadrack Mutua Mutuku & David Mutuku Kyuli which are the same parties save for the Plaintiff, the spouse to the 3rd Defendant/Respondent herein whom the statutory notices were served upon. 33.Consequently, it was submitted that the parties in both courts are litigating under the same title since in Tawa MCCC E157 of 2025, the husband to the Plaintiff herein was the Plaintiff therein seeking for injunction orders against the 1st Defendant, Rafiki Microfinance Bank Limited. 34.It was submitted that the Tawa application was heard and a ruling delivered on 01/07/ 2025 whereby it was dismissed on grounds that the Plaintiff did not fully satisfy the requirements granting an injunction and that the bank had complied with all requisite statutory steps including service of the statutory notices on the Plaintiff/Applicant herein as the spouse to the 3rd Defendant/Respondent herein. Consequently, it was submitted that the issues herein have been heard and determined by a competent court. 35.As to whether this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the application and suit, it was submitted in the negative owing to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction. That, the value of the suit property cannot go beyond 20,000,000/= in order to meet the pecuniary jurisdiction of this court. Reliance was placed inter alia on the case of Rasanga -vs- Siaya Medical Hospital Limited (Commercial Case E006 of 2022) [2024] KEHC 949 (KLR) (31 January 2024) (Ruling) where the court (Mwanaisha J) stated;“It is pursuant to Article 169 (2) that Parliament enacted the Magistrates Court Act, whose objectives as set out at Section 4 is; to facilitate just, expeditious, proportionate and accessible judicial services in exercise of criminal and civil jurisdiction. Section 7 (1) (a) of the Act confers the Chief Magistrate with pecuniary jurisdiction of up to Kshs.20, 000,000/= (Twenty million).” 36.As to whether the Applicant has met the threshold for grant of interlocutory injunction, it was submitted that the Applicant has absolutely no prima facie case to warrant the grant of interlocutory injunction she desperately seeks. That, she has primarily raised three (3) issues in her application. Firstly, she claims that the 2nd Defendant/Respondent has dutifully serviced the loan; secondly that the 1st Defendant failed to obtain a spousal consent before charging the suit property; thirdly, that valuation has not been done. 37.With regard to servicing of the loan, it was submitted that the bank was prompted to exercise its statutory power of sale due to default in the loan repayment. That, the issue was dealt with by the Tawa court and the loan account statements produced in support of the bank’s averment that the loan amount was in default. That, the Applicant has shown no intention whatsoever of repaying the loan dues owed to the bank but has instead elected to block the realization of the security. Reliance was placed on the case of Khan and Another -vs- Habib Bank A.G. Zurich and Another [2022] eKLR where the court stated;“I find that the Bank has affirmatively shown that it served all the notices required under the Land Act and the Auctioneers Rules as a prelude for exercise of its statutory power of sale. There is thus no basis to grant the injunction pending determination of the suit.” 38.With regard to the spousal consent, it was submitted that the bank duly issued and served the statutory notice dated 19/10/ 2023 upon the 3rd Defendant/Respondent, his spouse Virginia Munyiva Musyoka, the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, vide registered post to their postal address being P.O Box 99-90125 Kikima as it appears on the Charge document and upon the 2nd Plaintiff/Applicant by registered post to his postal address being P.O Box 176-90125 Kikima as it appears on the Charge document, on 23/10/2023. 39.That, upon the lapse of the ninety (90) days statutory notice aforementioned, the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents had not rectified the default as notified hence prompting the bank to proceed with the sale of the charged land as per the terms of Section 96(2) of the Land Act. That, a Forty (40) days statutory notice to sell dated 29/08/ 2024 was served upon the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents and upon the Plaintiff/Applicant herein, Virginia Munyiva Musyoka, the 3rd Defendant’s spouse, both vide registered post to their postal address being P.O Box 99-90125 Kikima as it appears on the Charge document and upon the 2nd Defendant/Respondent by registered post to his postal address being P.O Box 176-90125 Kikima as it appears on the Charge document, on 05/09/ 2024. 40.Consequently, it was submitted that the bank has fully complied with the mandatory pre-requisites of Sections 90 and 96 of the Land Act. That, the Plaintiff/Applicant is simply coining a narrative to conveniently enable her to enjoy an interlocutory injunction and continue defaulting on the loan, at the great expense of the bank whose statutory power of sale has crystallized. 41.That at the lapse of the Forty (40) day period stipulated under the said notice, the 1st and 2nd Defendants/Respondents had not made any effort whatsoever to rectify the default hence causing the bank to issue instructions to an Auctioneer to proceed with the sale accordingly. That, in strict conformity with the law, the Auctioneer issued a Forty-Five (45) day redemption notice as required under Rule 15 of the Auctioneers Rules. 42.That, the Auctioneer dutifully served the Forty-Five (45) days redemption notice accompanied by the notification of sale both dated 20/02/ 2025 upon the 3rd Defendant/Respondent, his spouse Virginia Munyiva Musyoka both vide registered post to their postal address being P.O Box 99-90125 Kikima as it appears on the Charge document and upon the 2nd Defendant/Respondent by registered post to his postal address being P.O Box 176-90125 Kikima as it appears on the Charge document, on 20/02/ 2025. That, a certificate of postage dated 20/02/2025 was issued evidencing the same and it was produced in the matter at Tawa. 43.It was submitted that the Plaintiff/Applicant herein has acknowledged receipt of the statutory notices and therefore, the Plaintiff/Applicant alleging that consent was not sought prior to the charging of the property, is an attempt to frustrate the imminent sale of the suit property. That, the issue was inherently addressed and conclusively settled by the court in Tawa whereby the court held that the 1st Defendant/Respondent followed the due process. 44.With regard to valuation of property it was submitted that the Applicant’s allegation that the bank wants to sell the suit property at a throw away price cannot be further from the truth since the bank undertook a forced sale valuation through the firm of Kenstate Valuers Limited. That, a valuation report dated 14/02/2025 returned a forced sale value of Kenya Shillings One Million Five Hundred Thousand (Kshs.1,500,000/=) and a market value of Kenya Shillings Two Million (Kshs. 2,000,000/=) in firm and strict conformity with the provisions of Section 97(3) of the Land Act. 45.That, it is therefore not sufficient for the Plaintiff/Applicant to casually allege that no valuation was undertaken and that the suit property stands the risk of being auctioned at a price lower that “the actual value”. Reliance was placed on the case of Zum Zum Investment Limited -vs- Habib Bank Limited where the court stated;“In my view, the Plaintiff has not demonstrated satisfactorily why this court should disregard the Defendant's valuation report and only rely on the Plaintiff's valuation reports. It is not sufficient for the Plaintiff to merely claim that the intended selling price is not the best price obtainable at the time by producing a counter-valuation report. The Plaintiff must satisfactorily demonstrate why the valuation report that the Defendant intends to rely on in disposing of the suit property does not give the best price obtainable at the material time.” 46.As to whether irreparable harm has been demonstrated, it was submitted that the Applicant willingly charged his suit property to secure the loan amount advanced to the 2nd Defendant/Respondent and he was thus well aware that in the event of default in loan repayment, the suit property would be sold. 47.That the Plaintiff/Applicant has not substantively established that she might suffer any irreparable injury that cannot be remedied by an award of damages in the absence of the interlocutory injunction sought. 48.That, the sale of the suit property to recover the loan dues cannot cause the Plaintiff/Applicant any irreparable harm. Reliance was placed on Peter Bogonko Onchonga -vs- National Bank of Kenya Limited & Another [2020] eKLR for the submission that by offering the suit property as security, the chargor was equating it to a commodity which the chargee may dispose of, so as to recover his loan together with the interest thereon. 49.It was submitted that the Plaintiff/Applicant has not demonstrated that the balance of convenience tilts in her favour, so that if the interlocutory injunction is not granted, the inconvenience to them shall be greater than if the suit is ultimately decided in her favour. Reliance was placed on William Kanyi Hezekiah -vs- Equity Bank Ltd & Another [2017] eKLR for the submission that where the statutory power of sale has arisen, the balance of convenience lies in enforcing the contractual obligations of the parties. 50.It was contended that the Plaintiff/Applicant has demonstrated outright and deliberate failure to repay the loan dues and the bank’s statutory power of sale has crystallized hence this court should uphold the bank’s right to recover the loan dues by selling the suit property and proceed to dismiss the application and suit herein. 51.I have carefully considered the application, the response and rival submissions. The issue for determination is whether the application is merited. Analysis & Determination 52.The factors to consider in determining an application for interlocutory injunction were enunciated in the locus classicus Giella -vs- Cassman Brown (1973) EA 358 as; prima facie case with probability of success, irreparable injury that cannot be compensated by award of damages and balance of convenience where the court is in doubt. 53.The bank raised a plea of res judicata and sub judice on the grounds that a similar application was filed in the Tawa Magistrates Court by the same parties and has already been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. 54.The doctrine of res judicata is codified in Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act 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.” 55.In Communications Commission of Kenya & 5 others -vs- Royal Media Services Limited & 5 Others [2014] eKLR, the Supreme Court expressed itself as follows on the issue of res judicata;“[317]The concept of res judicata operates to prevent causes of action, or issues from being re-litigated once they have been determined on the merits. It encompasses limits upon both issues and claims, and the issues that may be raised in subsequent proceedings….[319]There are conditions to the application of the doctrine of res judicata:(i)) the issue in the first suit must have been decided by a competent Court;(ii)the matter in dispute in the former suit between the parties must be directly or substantially in dispute between the parties in the suit where the doctrine is pleaded as a bar; and(iii)the parties in the former suit should be the same parties, or parties under whom they or any of them claim, litigating under the same title… 56.In Tawa MCCC E157 of 2025, the Plaintiffs were Shadrack Mutua Mutuku & David Mutuku Kyuli whereas the Defendants were Rafiki Microfinance Bank Ltd & Kennedy Nyaga T/A Garth Day Year Auctioneers. The said Plaintiffs filed an application dated 06/05/2025 seeking injunctive orders to restrain the Bank from selling Mbooni/Mutitu/1690, which suit land is the subject in the application before this court. The Applicant herein, who admittedly is the wife of David Mutuku Kyuli, is also seeking injunctive orders to restrain the bank from selling the suit land. 57.With regard to the parties therefore, it is evident that they are all similar except the Plaintiff herein who by virtue of being the wife of the 3rd Respondent herein qualifies as a party under whom the 3rd Respondent is suing. The requirement of similarity of parties has therefore been established. 58.Actually, from the depositions in the Tawa application, the suit land is registered in the name of the 3rd Respondent who is the father of the 2nd Respondent. That, the 2nd Respondent was given a loan by the bank where his father acted as his guarantor and offered the suit land as security. The Applicant herein is therefore the mother of the 2nd Respondent and wife of the 3rd Respondent. 59.The Tawa application was grounded on the depositions that the Applicants had dutifully serviced the loan including interest and penalties if any, that they had not been served with statutory notices under the Land Act and that the bank had not done a current valuation of the suit land. In the application herein, the grounds are that the suit land is matrimonial property, that spousal consent of the Applicant was not obtained, that the loan has been fully repaid and that valuation has not been done. 60.It is therefore evident that apart from the spousal consent issue, all the other matters in dispute are similar in both applications. Further, the issue of spousal consent does not count as a novel issue in the application before this court because, the 3rd Respondent herein being the Plaintiff in the Tawa suit and the husband of the Plaintiff herein, he had a chance to raise it in the Tawa court but he did not, whether by design, negligence or otherwise. His conduct is what would be described as ‘prosecuting a case in installments’ and is addressed by what is commonly known as the rule in Henderson -vs-Henderson [1843] 67 ER 313 where Sir James Wigram V-C stated;“… where a given matter becomes the subject of litigation in, and of adjudication by, a court of competent jurisdiction, the court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward the whole case, and will not (except under special circumstances) permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest, but which was not brought forward, only because they have, from negligence, inadvertence, or even accident, omitted part of the case. A plea of res judicata applies, except in special cases, not only to points upon which the court was actually required by the parties to form an opinion and pronounce a judgment, but to every point which properly belonged to the subject of the litigation, and which the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, might have brought forward at the time.” 61.From the foregoing it is evident that the matters in dispute herein were substantially in dispute between the parties in the Tawa application. 62.In the ruling delivered by the Tawa Court on 01/07/ 2025, the trial magistrate expressed himself as follows;“ 14.14. The Applicants did not annex any loan account statement to show that indeed the loan had been serviced. On the other hand, the Respondents produced a loan account statement and demonstrated that indeed the loan remained unserviced and had accrued arrears exponentially. It is plainly obvious from the statement that a loan was advanced to the 2nd Plaintiff/applicant and they have defaulted in making loan repayments for over two years thus accruing penalties and interest. 16.Annexed to the affidavit of John Lagat, the 1st defendant/respondent indeed showed that statutory notices were issued to the plaintiffs/applicants. The applicants did not respond to the notice and the respondent had no alternative other than to proceed with the sale of the charged land in accordance with section 96(2) of the Land Act. I therefore find that the respondents complied with the prerequisites and thus the statutory power of sale crystallized or had arisen.” 63.The jurisdiction of the Tawa court to determine the application before it is not in question. The issues were determined by a competent court. Those issues have been raised again in the application before this court in the guise of a matrimonial consent issue. For that reason the application herein is res judicata as it fits squarely into the requirements in Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act. 64.The applicants if aggrieved by the ruling of the Tawa court, They ought to have appealed instead they withdrew the Tawa suit and brought a fresh suit here through the 3rd Respondents wife. That is untenable. 65.The evidence also shows that, the Bank annexed a valuation report dated 14/02/2025 indicating that the market value of the suit land is kshs 2,000,000/= while the forced value is kshs 1,500,000/=. The Applicant is disputing the valuation but she did not produce an alternative valuation report for the court’s benefit. 66.In addition, the suit ought to have been filed in the Magistrate’s court with jurisdiction pursuant to. Section 7 (1) (a) of the Magistrates Court Act which confers the Chief Magistrate with pecuniary jurisdiction of up to Kshs.20, 000,000/= (Twenty million). 67.Having arrived at the above conclusions I find that the application is not merited. The applicant has not established a prima facie case, the issues raised herein are res judicata, and the same ought to have been filed in the magistrate’s court with pecuniary jurisdiction. 68.The application is dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent. 69.Orders accordingly. RULING DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED VIA CTS ON 31ST JULY 2026MUMBUA T MATHEKAJUDGEApplicant’s AdvocatesJ. Tamata & Co. Advocates1st Respondent’s AdvocatesAlexander & Alexander Advocates