[2022] KEELC 628 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 628 (KLR)

The court found that although Civil Appeal No 390 of 2019 is pending before the Court of Appeal, it arises from different proceedings (ELC 157 of 2016 as consolidated with ELC 381 of 2014) and there are no orders of stay of execution in place. The parties in the current suit have already been heard in the previous...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 628 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Registered Trustees of Teleposta Pension Scheme; Defendant: Bernard Kariuki Wataari; Defendant: Rebecca Letangule; Defendant: Remguis Okeyo; Defendant: Faith Njoroge; Defendant: Jacqueline Kezia; Defendant: Beatrice Kalenda; Defendant: Catherine Kirara; Defendant: Kennedy Bwosi; Defendant: Jennifer Okoth; Defendant: Lawrence Mugambi; Defendant: Paul M. Gitau; Defendant: Ken M. Sitima
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case E134 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
Judges
LC Komingoi
Legal Topics
Subjudice Principle, Vacant Possession, Eviction Orders, Multiplicity of Suits
Source Language
en
Land and Property Subjudice Principle Vacant Possession Eviction Orders Multiplicity of Suits

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Registered Trustees of Teleposta Pension Scheme

Plaintiff

Bernard Kariuki Wataari

Defendant

Rebecca Letangule

Defendant

Remguis Okeyo

Defendant

Faith Njoroge

Defendant

Jacqueline Kezia

Defendant

Beatrice Kalenda

Defendant

Catherine Kirara

Defendant

Kennedy Bwosi

Defendant

Jennifer Okoth

Defendant

Lawrence Mugambi

Defendant

Paul M. Gitau

Defendant

Ken M. Sitima

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the suit is sub judice in light of Civil Appeal No 390 of 2019 pending before the Court of Appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the plaint should be struck out and the suit dismissed as an abuse of court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although Civil Appeal No 390 of 2019 is pending before the Court of Appeal, it arises from different proceedings (ELC 157 of 2016 as consolidated with ELC 381 of 2014) and there are no orders of stay of execution in place. The parties in the current suit have already been heard in the previous matters, and there are no other proceedings pending before this court in respect of the same parties and subject matter. Therefore, the doctrine of sub judice does not apply, and the preliminary objection lacks merit. The suit is not an abuse of court process and is not barred from proceeding.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed with costs to the plaintiff

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff/Respondent.