Wasike & another v Eldoret Express Limited & 13 others (Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E001 of 2025) [2025] KEELC 6876 (KLR) (13 October 2025) (Ruling)
Neutral citation:
[2025] KEELC 6876 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
Enviromental and Land Originating Summons E001 of 2025
CK Nzili, J
October 13, 2025
Between
Martin Wabuke Wasike
1st Plaintiff
Esther Manyasia Onesmus
2nd Plaintiff
and
Eldoret Express Limited & 13 others & 13 others & 13 others
Defendant
Ruling
1.Before the court is an application dated 17/6/2025 seeking to set aside the ruling dated 17/6/2025, reinstatement of the originating summons for hearing, stay of the execution of the ruling, and the eviction orders issued therein. The grounds are set out on the face of the application and in a supporting affidavit of Martin Wabuke Wasike, sworn on 26/6/2025.
2.The applicant deposes that the ruling was fraudulently obtained as the respondents concealed the stay orders issued on 11/6/2019, prohibiting any further litigation without leave, ruling in Kitale HCC No. 17 of 2018 and 22 of 2022, confirming that Tawai Ltd had only two lawful directors, hence all other purported transactions are void; the ruling is legally unsustainable in view of the orders made on 11/6/2019, ruling delivered on 23/11/2023, and 2/5/2024, annexed as No. (1), (2), and (3).
3.The application is opposed by the 1st defendant on the grounds of opposition dated 15/7/2025. The 1st respondent relies on written submissions dated 21/7/2025, stating that the application is res judicata. Reliance is placed on Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd -vs- Muiri Coffee Estates Ltd & Others [2016] eKLR. It is submitted that in Kitale HCC No. 17 of 2018, the Court of Appeal in Eldoret Civil Appeal affirmed L.R. No. 5707/6 I.R. No. 43019 belonged to it and ordered for eviction order. It was further submitted that in Supreme Court Application No. 23 of 2025, an application for leave to appeal by Tawai Ltd was dismissed, upholding the Court of Appeal decision.
4.The 1st respondent submitted that this court cannot therefore sit on a matter already concluded by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal. It was submitted that the court, by a ruling delivered on 17/6/2025, held that the suit was res judicata and that to grant the reliefs sought was like overruling decrees already issued by the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
5.The basis of the application is that the ruling of this court is misleading and was procured fraudulently. This court is bound by the doctrine of stare decisis, which is a legal principle requiring courts to abide by established precedent set by prior decisions by higher courts. The doctrine seeks to provide legal stability, predictability, and consistency by binding lower courts to the decision of higher courts.
6.In Geoffrey M. Asanyo & Others -vs- The Attorney General, Supreme Court Petition No. 7 of 2019, the court cited Jasbir Singh Rai & Others -vs- Tarchalan Singh Rai & Others [2013] eKLR, that adherence to precedent should be the rule rather than the exception. The court cited Raila Odinga & Others -vs- Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission & Others [2013] eKLR, that the functus officio doctrine is one of the mechanisms by which the law gives expression to the principle of finality, and that once a decision has been taken (subject to the right of appeal), it is final and conclusive.
7.In this application, the court is asked to revisit the ruling, based on two determinations by courts of concurrent jurisdiction and one from the Court of Appeal. The applicant blames the respondents for fraud, misrepresentation, and non-disclosure of material facts, denial of due process, fundamental procedural errors, conflict of court orders, impossibility, equity and the interests of justice.
8.The applicant terms my ruling as likely to cause him extreme hardship and injustice as well as being legally unsustainable. This court, in arriving at the impugned ruling, considered all the relevant materials that were availed by the respective parties generally and, in particular, the binding decisions on the same parties over the same subject matter that have gone up to the Court of Appeal and ended up in the Supreme Court.
9.Article 163(7) of the Constitution embodies the doctrine of stare decisis. It is a constitutional requirement that this court abides by the decisions of the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Kenya. See Gatirau Peter Munya -vs- Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & Others [2014] eKLR.
10.In Kidero & Others -vs- Waititu & Others, Petition No. 20 of 2014, the court said that the Supreme Court is obligated by Article 163(7) of the Constitution to settle complex issues of constitutional and legal controversies and give jurisprudential guidance to the lower courts. This court has no choice but to comply with the doctrine of stare decisis. It cannot reopen matters already concluded at both the Court of Appeal and at the Supreme Court. The upshot is that I find the application lacking merit. It is dismissed with costs.
11.Orders accordingly.
RULING DATED, SIGNED, AND DELIVERED VIA MICROSOFT TEAMS/OPEN COURT AT KITALE ON THIS 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2025.HON. C.K. NZILIJUDGE, ELC KITALE.In the presence of:Court Assistant - DennisApplicant present in personMr. Kiarie for 2nd and 3rd defendants present