1.The plaintiff raised a preliminary objection (PO) dated 21.7.2025 against the defendants’ application dated 1.7.2025.
2.The main grounds are that: -
(1) the application is res judicata as the defendants had earlier filed a similar application seeking to lift the freezing orders made on their accounts which was dismissed through a ruling delivered on 25.2.2025. In effect, the subsequent application is asking the court to sit on appeal over its own decision.
(2) The application is fatally and incurably defective as the court cannot grant the applicants an interim remedy where the applicant has not filed a pleading seeking an injunction.
3.The PO was canvassed through written submissions.
4.In the written submissions dated 9.10.2025, the plaintiff urged the court to uphold its PO. It relied on: -
(1) Geoffrey Ndungu Theuri v Law Society of Kenya [1988] eKLR
(2) Equity Bank (Kenya) Ltd v Doris Makena [2021] KEHC 7536 (KLR)
(3) Uhuru Highway Development Limited v Central Bank of Kenya & 2 others [1996] eKLR
(4) Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission v Maina Kiai & 5 Others [2017] eKLR
5.There were no submissions filed on behalf of the defendants on the Judiciary’s case tracking system as I was preparing this ruling.
Analysis and Determination
6.The issue before the court is whether the PO is merited.
7.The first ground is that the defendants’ application is res judicata.
8.A preliminary objection ‘…must not be blurred with factual details liable to be contested and in any event, to be proved through the processes of evidence.’ J. B. Ojwang’ J (as he then was (Rtd) in Oraro v Mbajja [2005] e KLR.
9.Ordinarily, except in very clear cases, proof of res judicata may not be obvious and would require probing of evidence. Henry Wanyama Khaemba v Standard Chartered Bank (K) Ltd & another [2014] KEHC 4804 (KLR)
10.The foregoing in mind, and the fact that the application-the subject of the PO- also seeks for review, suggests that the potency of res juidicata be tested in the hearing of the application.
11.The second ground is that the application is fatally and incurably defective as the court cannot grant the applicants an interim remedy where the applicant has not filed a pleading seeking an injunction.
12.I have read the application. The defendants seek lifting, review or variation of the freezing and preservation orders issued on 16.5.2025 that is affecting their bank accounts. I do not think the objection extends to this prayer.
13.I do note that the defendants also seek a mandatory injunction to compel the plaintiff to unfreeze their accounts.
14.That notwithstanding, I agree with the plaintiff’s submission that ‘…the general proposition is that an injunction cannot exist in isolation and must be linked to an underlying cause of action....’ (Equity Bank (Kenya) Ltd v Doris Makena [supra] the court quoted American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396, House of Lords)
15.Nevertheless, it is my considered view that, as the application also seeks review, it is appropriate that this point and the others in the PO be considered in the application dated 1.7.2025 for effectual and complete determination of the issues raised. Costs in the cause.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 17th day of December, 2025 through Microsoft Teams online application
-----------------
F. Gikonyo M
Judge
In the presence of: -
Mosobera for Kiragu/Ondieki for plaintiff
Kuloba for 8th Intended defendant
Abdi Rahman for 1st to 7th defendant
CA- Kinyua
2.The main grounds are that: -
(1) the application is res judicata as the defendants had earlier filed a similar application seeking to lift the freezing orders made on their accounts which was dismissed through a ruling delivered on 25.2.2025. In effect, the subsequent application is asking the court to sit on appeal over its own decision.
(2) The application is fatally and incurably defective as the court cannot grant the applicants an interim remedy where the applicant has not filed a pleading seeking an injunction.
3.The PO was canvassed through written submissions.
4.In the written submissions dated 9.10.2025, the plaintiff urged the court to uphold its PO. It relied on: -
(1) Geoffrey Ndungu Theuri v Law Society of Kenya [1988] eKLR
(2) Equity Bank (Kenya) Ltd v Doris Makena [2021] KEHC 7536 (KLR)
(3) Uhuru Highway Development Limited v Central Bank of Kenya & 2 others [1996] eKLR
(4) Independent Electoral & Boundaries Commission v Maina Kiai & 5 Others [2017] eKLR
5.There were no submissions filed on behalf of the defendants on the Judiciary’s case tracking system as I was preparing this ruling.
Analysis and Determination
6.The issue before the court is whether the PO is merited.
7.The first ground is that the defendants’ application is res judicata.
8.A preliminary objection ‘…must not be blurred with factual details liable to be contested and in any event, to be proved through the processes of evidence.’ J. B. Ojwang’ J (as he then was (Rtd) in Oraro v Mbajja [2005] e KLR.
9.Ordinarily, except in very clear cases, proof of res judicata may not be obvious and would require probing of evidence. Henry Wanyama Khaemba v Standard Chartered Bank (K) Ltd & another [2014] KEHC 4804 (KLR)
10.The foregoing in mind, and the fact that the application-the subject of the PO- also seeks for review, suggests that the potency of res juidicata be tested in the hearing of the application.
11.The second ground is that the application is fatally and incurably defective as the court cannot grant the applicants an interim remedy where the applicant has not filed a pleading seeking an injunction.
12.I have read the application. The defendants seek lifting, review or variation of the freezing and preservation orders issued on 16.5.2025 that is affecting their bank accounts. I do not think the objection extends to this prayer.
13.I do note that the defendants also seek a mandatory injunction to compel the plaintiff to unfreeze their accounts.
14.That notwithstanding, I agree with the plaintiff’s submission that ‘…the general proposition is that an injunction cannot exist in isolation and must be linked to an underlying cause of action....’ (Equity Bank (Kenya) Ltd v Doris Makena [supra] the court quoted American Cyanamid v Ethicon [1975] AC 396, House of Lords)
15.Nevertheless, it is my considered view that, as the application also seeks review, it is appropriate that this point and the others in the PO be considered in the application dated 1.7.2025 for effectual and complete determination of the issues raised. Costs in the cause.
Dated, signed and delivered at Nairobi this 17th day of December, 2025 through Microsoft Teams online application
-----------------
F. Gikonyo M
Judge
In the presence of: -
Mosobera for Kiragu/Ondieki for plaintiff
Kuloba for 8th Intended defendant
Abdi Rahman for 1st to 7th defendant
CA- Kinyua