By a consent dated 4th June 2025 the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant wished the court to adopt same as stated below;
1. THAT the Plaintiff is the lawful proprietor of Land Parcel Mavoko Town Block 3/54594, having been registered as the owner on or about 18th November 2016, and duly issued with title deed thereto, following the subdivision of Title No. Mavoko Town Block 3/2056.
2. THAT the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant confirm that they have no further r outstanding claims against each other in respect of Mavoko Town Block 3/2056 or its resultant subdivisions.
3. THAT the Plaintiff’s claim against the 1st Defendant in this suit is hereby marked as fully settled.
4. THAT each party shall bear its own costs as between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant.
The 3rd to the 19th Defendants objected to the said consent and stated that the same is res judicata and had been rejected twice by the court. The Plaintiff initially sued the 1st and 2nd Defendants in this matter, formerly Machakos ELC No. 78 of 2012, whilst the 3rd to 19th Defendants had been joined as Interested Parties. On 19th December 2014, the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant prevailed upon the Honourable Court, then presided over by Hon. Justice Kariuki, to adopt a purported consent dated 27th August 2014 as an order of the Court. That consent, if given effect, sought to dispossess the 3rd to 19th Interested Parties of their respective parcels of land. What was not disclosed to Hon. Justice Kariuki, however, was that the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant were fully aware that the Interested Parties had, in Nairobi ELC No. 225 of 2014, obtained subsisting status quo orders against the 1st Defendant in respect of L.R. No. Mavoko Town Block 3/2056. It is thus evident that the purported consent was nothing more than a mischievous contrivance designed by the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant to defeat both the proceedings in Nairobi ELC No. 225 of 2014 and the present suit. Pursuant to that irregular consent order, the suit property, L.R. No. Mavoko Town Block 3/2056, was unlawfully and irregularly subdivided into L.R. No. Mavoko Municipality Block 3/54594 and 54595. Upon learning of this mischief, the advocates acting for the 3rd to 19th Interested Parties filed an application dated 19th December 2016 seeking, inter alia, the setting aside of the irregular consent and the joinder of the 3rd to 19th Interested Parties as Defendants in this suit. That application was duly allowed by Hon. Justice O. Angote by his ruling delivered on 22nd September 2017. Again on the 20th November 2023 when the matter came up for hearing the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant wanted to record a consent which was opposed and Justice Christine Ochieng upheld their objection and stated that the matter proceeds to trial.
This court has considered the objection by the 3rd to 19th Defendants to the consent herein being adopted in that it is res judicata to ruling of this court dated 22nd September 2017 and 20th November 2023. Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act Provides
"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.”
Expounding further on the essence of the doctrine this Court in John Florence Maritime Services Limited & Another vs Cabinet Secretary for Transport and Infrastructure & 3 Others (2015) eKLR pronounced itself as follows;
“The rationale behind res-judicata is based on the public interest that there should be an end to litigation coupled with the interest to protect a party from facing repetitive litigation over the same matter. Res-judicata ensures the economic use of court’s limited resources and timely termination of cases. Courts are already clogged and overwhelmed. They can hardly spare time to repeat themselves on issues already decided upon. It promotes stability of judgments by reducing the possibility of inconsistency in judgments of concurrent courts. It promotes confidence in the courts and predictability which is one of the essential ingredients in maintaining respect for justice and the rule of law. Without res judicata, the very essence of the rule of law would be in danger of unraveling uncontrollably.”
I have perused the court proceedings and find that by a ruling dated 22nd September 2017 by Justice Oscar Angote and the one dated 20th November 2023 by Justice Christine Ochieng found that this consent is res judicata as the same had already been determined and the court declined to adopt the same. I concur with the 3rd to 19th Defendants and find that the Plaintiff and 1st Defendants are forum shopping and the same is an abuse of the court process. I hereby dismiss the said consent and order that the matter proceeds to full trial.
It is so ordered.
1. THAT the Plaintiff is the lawful proprietor of Land Parcel Mavoko Town Block 3/54594, having been registered as the owner on or about 18th November 2016, and duly issued with title deed thereto, following the subdivision of Title No. Mavoko Town Block 3/2056.
2. THAT the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant confirm that they have no further r outstanding claims against each other in respect of Mavoko Town Block 3/2056 or its resultant subdivisions.
3. THAT the Plaintiff’s claim against the 1st Defendant in this suit is hereby marked as fully settled.
4. THAT each party shall bear its own costs as between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant.
The 3rd to the 19th Defendants objected to the said consent and stated that the same is res judicata and had been rejected twice by the court. The Plaintiff initially sued the 1st and 2nd Defendants in this matter, formerly Machakos ELC No. 78 of 2012, whilst the 3rd to 19th Defendants had been joined as Interested Parties. On 19th December 2014, the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant prevailed upon the Honourable Court, then presided over by Hon. Justice Kariuki, to adopt a purported consent dated 27th August 2014 as an order of the Court. That consent, if given effect, sought to dispossess the 3rd to 19th Interested Parties of their respective parcels of land. What was not disclosed to Hon. Justice Kariuki, however, was that the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant were fully aware that the Interested Parties had, in Nairobi ELC No. 225 of 2014, obtained subsisting status quo orders against the 1st Defendant in respect of L.R. No. Mavoko Town Block 3/2056. It is thus evident that the purported consent was nothing more than a mischievous contrivance designed by the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant to defeat both the proceedings in Nairobi ELC No. 225 of 2014 and the present suit. Pursuant to that irregular consent order, the suit property, L.R. No. Mavoko Town Block 3/2056, was unlawfully and irregularly subdivided into L.R. No. Mavoko Municipality Block 3/54594 and 54595. Upon learning of this mischief, the advocates acting for the 3rd to 19th Interested Parties filed an application dated 19th December 2016 seeking, inter alia, the setting aside of the irregular consent and the joinder of the 3rd to 19th Interested Parties as Defendants in this suit. That application was duly allowed by Hon. Justice O. Angote by his ruling delivered on 22nd September 2017. Again on the 20th November 2023 when the matter came up for hearing the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant wanted to record a consent which was opposed and Justice Christine Ochieng upheld their objection and stated that the matter proceeds to trial.
This court has considered the objection by the 3rd to 19th Defendants to the consent herein being adopted in that it is res judicata to ruling of this court dated 22nd September 2017 and 20th November 2023. Section 7 of the Civil Procedure Act Provides
"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.”
Expounding further on the essence of the doctrine this Court in John Florence Maritime Services Limited & Another vs Cabinet Secretary for Transport and Infrastructure & 3 Others (2015) eKLR pronounced itself as follows;
“The rationale behind res-judicata is based on the public interest that there should be an end to litigation coupled with the interest to protect a party from facing repetitive litigation over the same matter. Res-judicata ensures the economic use of court’s limited resources and timely termination of cases. Courts are already clogged and overwhelmed. They can hardly spare time to repeat themselves on issues already decided upon. It promotes stability of judgments by reducing the possibility of inconsistency in judgments of concurrent courts. It promotes confidence in the courts and predictability which is one of the essential ingredients in maintaining respect for justice and the rule of law. Without res judicata, the very essence of the rule of law would be in danger of unraveling uncontrollably.”
I have perused the court proceedings and find that by a ruling dated 22nd September 2017 by Justice Oscar Angote and the one dated 20th November 2023 by Justice Christine Ochieng found that this consent is res judicata as the same had already been determined and the court declined to adopt the same. I concur with the 3rd to 19th Defendants and find that the Plaintiff and 1st Defendants are forum shopping and the same is an abuse of the court process. I hereby dismiss the said consent and order that the matter proceeds to full trial.
It is so ordered.