[2019] KEHC 1856 (KLR)
The court found that all issues raised by the applicant had already been conclusively determined in previous rulings, and there was no basis for reopening them. The attempt to introduce new parties at this late stage was improper and disrespectful to the professional roles of those individuals, as they were not...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEHC 1856 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Africa Oil Turkana Ltd & Others; Respondent: 09036558 B C Ltd; Applicant: Edward Kings Maina & Others
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Winding Up Cause 1 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Winding Up Cause / Ruling on Notice of Motion
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- HK Chemitei
- Legal Topics
- Winding Up Proceedings, Creditor Rights, Execution of Orders
- 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
Africa Oil Turkana Ltd & Others
Applicant
09036558 B C Ltd
Respondent
Edward Kings Maina & Others
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Winding Up Cause / Ruling on Notice of Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the issues raised by the applicant had already been determined by previous court rulings.
- 2 Whether the applicant can introduce new parties into the proceedings at this stage.
- 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to further reliefs regarding costs and contempt.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that all issues raised by the applicant had already been conclusively determined in previous rulings, and there was no basis for reopening them. The attempt to introduce new parties at this late stage was improper and disrespectful to the professional roles of those individuals, as they were not parties to the original proceedings. The court also held that the issue of costs was settled, and the applicant should collect the deposited sum from the court. The application was therefore dismissed as an abuse of process, and the applicant was advised that the appropriate remedy, if aggrieved, was to file an appeal rather than seek repeated reconsideration of settled matters.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The application dated 19th June 2019 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT KITALE
WINDING UP CAUSE NO. 1 OF 2011
AFRICA OIL TURKANA LTD & OTHERS..................................................PETITIONERS
VERSES
09036558 B C LTD ..............................................SUPPORTING CREDITOR/RESPONDENT
AND
EDWARD KINGS MAINA & OTHERS...........................5TH CONTIRBUTOR/APPLICANT
RULING
1. By a lengthy notice of motion dated 19th June 2019, the5th Contributor /Applicant has prayed for various orders from this court. The same is supported by an affidavit sworn on the same date though indicated as 2010.
2. When the matter came up for hearing ANTHONY LESHAN Advocateheld brief for the other counsels on record and submitted orally just as the applicant was allowed to do so. The said counsel also filed a replying affidavit dated 7th October, 2019 in which he prayed that the application be dismissed as the issues raised had been decided. There was also a grounds of opposition on record filed by the Respondents as well as the preliminary objection.
3. Reading the application as well as the supporting affidavit and the annexures attached, this court is convinced that the issues raised by the applicant had long been dealt with and the only option left for the applicant was to file an appeal.
4. The other applications were matters dealt with by the Deputy Registrar of this court and they border on executions among others.
5. I have taken the liberty and looked at the various rulings in the court file namely that dated 2nd July 2013, by the Deputy registrar, 5th December 2013, 14th October, 2014 and 28th May, 2019 and they all dealt with the matters raised by the Applicants.
6. The applicant within this application as rightfully submitted by the counsel for the Respondents cannot be allowed to bring in other parties whether employees of various parties on record or for that matter individual advocates acting for their clients into the case. It is not only late in the day but it borders on disrespect on their professional work noting that they were not parties in the case in the first instance.
7. The question of the costs which was awarded to the Applicant is no longer open for discussion as the applicant seemed to invite me to. If the Respondents have deposited the sum in court what better way does the applicant expect the court to assist. He should collect the sum from the relevant court section barring any other requirements, if any, imposed on the said sum.
8. In summary litigation must come to an end. The Applicant should appeal any decisions of this court if aggrieved. This court cannot hold anybody in contempt as the Applicants want without any fault.
9. This application is hereby dismissed with costs.
Dated, signed and delivered in open court at Kitale this 18th day of November, 2019.
__________________
H K CHEMITEI
JUDGE
18/11/19
In the presence of:-
Kings 5TH Contributor present
No appearance for Respondent
Court Assistant – Kirong
Ruling read in open court