[2007] KEHC 3630 (KLR)
The court found that the issues raised in the present suit had already been directly and substantially in issue in previous proceedings, particularly in Succession Cause 983/95, which finalized the distribution of the estate of Gathina Kungu and resolved all disputes regarding the suit land. The court held that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2007] KEHC 3630 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Serah Wanjiku Mutu; Plaintiff: Samuel Kimani; Plaintiff: Abrahim Mwangi Mutu; Defendant: Philomena Njambi Mutu
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 462 of 2005
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Preliminary Objection Ruling
- Outcome
- suit dismissed as res judicata
- Legal Topics
- Res Judicata, Adverse Possession, Succession Disputes
- 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
Serah Wanjiku Mutu
Plaintiff
Samuel Kimani
Plaintiff
Abrahim Mwangi Mutu
Plaintiff
Philomena Njambi Mutu
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Preliminary Objection Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the present suit is res judicata due to prior litigation involving the same parties and subject matter.
- 2 Whether the issues raised in this suit were directly and substantially in issue in previous suits, particularly Succession Cause 983/95.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the issues raised in the present suit had already been directly and substantially in issue in previous proceedings, particularly in Succession Cause 983/95, which finalized the distribution of the estate of Gathina Kungu and resolved all disputes regarding the suit land. The court held that there was nothing left to be determined, as the succession proceedings had conclusively addressed the rights of the parties. Therefore, the present suit was barred by the doctrine of res judicata as provided under Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act. The preliminary objection was upheld, and the suit was dismissed accordingly.
Court Disposition
suit dismissed as res judicata
Orders
- The preliminary objection is upheld.
- The suit is dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
53 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Civil Case 462 of 2005
Land and Environmental Law Division
1. Subject of main suit – Adverse Possession
2. Preliminary objection: Suit is Res judicata
Section 7 Civil Procedure Act
Court calls up all files
i. Cr case Thika CM’s court 5804/95
ii. Hccc849/01 Nairobi
iii. Hccc479/05 Nairobi
iv. Hccc 3209//91 Nairobi
v. Succession cause 2807/98 Nairobi
vi. Succession Cause 983/95 Nairobi
vii. Hccc 462/05 chamber summons Nairobi
3. Held:
Suit Res judicata
4. Case law - Nil
5. Advocates:
G. Kamonde for G. Kamonde & Co. Advocates for the plaintiff
Kamau for Kamau & Co. Advocates for the defendant
SERAH WANJIKU MUTU.............………………………….1ST PLAINTIFF
SAMUEL KIMANI ……………………….………..…………2ND PLAINTIFF
ABRAHIM MWANGI MUTU ……………..……..………….3RD PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PHILOMENA NJAMBI MUTU ………………………………. DEFENDANT
RULING
PRELIMINARY OBJECTION
1)BACKGROUND
1. The estate of Gathina Kungu concerns land Ndarugu/Gacharage/490. A dispute arose during his life time over the parcel of land amongst his heirs. He died without solving this problem. The land was purportedly and fraudulently transferred. Two persons George Mutu and James Mangare Maugo were charged before the Thika Magistrates Criminal courts in case No.5804/1995. They were acquitted of being involved in fraudulent acts concerning the land title.
2. Several parties began to file suits in court. It is not denied that cases had been heard in the DO’s office, the High Court and or Magistrates Courts (on the criminal case). It thus transpired that the following cases were filed (in no particular order):-
I) Nairobi Hccc 3209/91 – to restrain the defendants from claiming land. It was never finalized
ii) Nairobi Hccc849/01 - plaintiff seeking Adverse Possession
Suit never heard or set down for hearing
iii) Succession Cause - Hccc2807/98
For amendment of grant
iv) Hccc 4791/05 OS - Adverse possession
v) Succession case 983/95
Grant of Probate of administration intestate finalized
Confirmation of grant given
iv) Criminal case 5804/95
Two accused acquitted of fraudulent acts.
3. From the records of these files the Succession Cause 983/95 had in effect finalised most of the disputes them and distributed the estate of Gathui Kungu. Nothing is therefore left.
Is the suit Res Judicata?
4. This suit must be one that the 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 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 issues has been subsequently raised, and has heard and finally decided by such court.
5. This case has been finalised in the P & A Succession Cause 983/95. There is nothing left.
6. I up hold the Preliminary Objection and accordingly dismiss this suit
Dated this 6th day of June 2007 at Nairobi.
M.A. ANG’AWA
JUDGE
G. Kamonde for G. Kamonde & Co. Advocates for the plaintiff
Kamau for Kamau & Co. Advocates for the defendant