SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

Charles Karanja Mashua v Mubiru Limited & 8 others [2020] KEELC 2469 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 2469 (KLR) Environment & Land Court
Read PDF
Court
Environment & Land Court
Case number
2469
Citation
[2020] KEELC 2469 (KLR)
Decided
14 May 2020
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureAppeal from a previous judgmentCoramCHARLES KARAN
Holding

The court finds that the previous suits were not heard on merit and thus the current suit is not res judicata. The suit is not statute barred.

Facts

The Plaintiff filed a boundary dispute suit in Nairobi HCCC No. 1683 of 2002 later renumbered Nairobi ELC No. 858 of 2007, and Machakos HCCC No. 89 of 2009. The suits were struck out due to jurisdictional issues.

Issues

  1. Whether the suit is res judicata
  2. Whether the suit is statute barred
  3. Whether the suit should be struck out with costs

Reasoning

The court ruled that the previous suits were dismissed on preliminary technical points and not on the merits, thus the current suit cannot be barred by res judicata. The suit is not statute barred.

Outcome

The application for striking out the suit with costs is dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for striking out the suit with costs is dismissed

Authorities cited

Legislation (2)
  • Civil Procedure Act
  • Land Registration Act
Cases cited (7)
  • Joshua Ngatu V Jane Mpinda & 3 Others (2019) eKLR
  • Nelson Machoka Keraro V Land Registrar, Kisii & 3 Others (2019) eKLR
  • Mary Wairimu Muraya V Ngari Muraya (2015) eKLR
  • Stephen Wanganga Njoroge Vs Stanley Ngugi Njoroge & Another (2017) eKLR
  • Uhuru Highway Development Ltd V Central Bank & Others, CA No. 36 of 1996
  • MWK Vs AMW (2016) eKLR
  • Article 50 (1) of the Constitution
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case