[2018] KEELC 2363 (KLR)
The court found that the plaintiff had acknowledged previous proceedings between herself and the defendant over the same subject matter, specifically CMCC Case No. 321 of 2005, where she was declared the registered proprietor of the suit land. The court held that the current suit, seeking eviction, is res judicata...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 2363 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Rose Naliaka; Defendant: Dishon Khisa Sirengo
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kakamega
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 565 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- Suit struck out as res judicata; costs awarded to defendant.
- Judges
- NA Matheka
- Legal Topics
- Res Judicata, Eviction Proceedings, Finality of Judgments
- 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
Rose Naliaka
Plaintiff
Dishon Khisa Sirengo
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the present suit is barred by the doctrine of res judicata due to prior litigation between the same parties over the same subject matter.
- 2 Whether the issue of eviction was previously determined in Kakamega CMCC No. 321 of 2005.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff had acknowledged previous proceedings between herself and the defendant over the same subject matter, specifically CMCC Case No. 321 of 2005, where she was declared the registered proprietor of the suit land. The court held that the current suit, seeking eviction, is res judicata as the matter was conclusively determined in the earlier case. The doctrine of res judicata is intended to bring finality to litigation and prevent parties from reopening issues already decided by a competent court. 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; costs awarded to defendant.
Orders
- The suit is struck out as res judicata.
- Costs awarded to the defendant.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT KAKAMEGA
ELC CASE NO. 565 OF 2014
ROSE NALIAKA ............................................................... PLAINTIFF
VERSES
DISHON KHISA SIRENGO ........................................ DEFENDANT
RULING
The defendant, raised a preliminary objection in point of law that this suit is res judicata Kakamega Chief Magistrate CMCC No. 321 of 2005 which was heard and determined involving the same parties and same suit land. The plaintiff does not dispute that the parties are the same but submits that the issue of eviction never arose in that case.
This court has considered the preliminary objection and the submissions therein. The doctrine of res-judicata requires that there should be an end to litigation in that where acourt of competent jurisdiction has rendered a conclusive decision on a matter, partiesshould not be allowed to litigate over the same issues again.Res Judicata helps avoid conflicting decisions over the same issues and gives finality tojudicial decisions.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 an eviction of the defendant from the suit land. The plaintiff discloses at paragraph 3 of the said plaint that there have beenprevious proceedings between her and the defendant over the same subjectmatter namely CMCC Case No. 321 of 2005 were she was declared the registered proprietor of the suit land namely land parcel number North Kabras/Luandeti/2395. I find that this suit is res judicata in view of the said Kakamega CMCC Case No. 321 of 2005 which has been decided.Any other further orders required ought to be pursued through the same file. The doctrine of res-judicata requires that there should be an end to litigation where acourt 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 17TH DAY OF JULY 2018.
N.A. MATHEKA
JUDGE