[2020] KECA 458 (KLR)

[2020] KECA 458 (KLR)

The court found that the present application was identical in parties and prayers to Civil Application No. 20 of 2020, save for being filed by different advocates. The court had already rendered a ruling in the earlier application, and therefore, to avoid duplicity and conflicting decisions, the ruling in Civil...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KECA 458 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Alice Mwikali Ngumbi; Applicant: Sammy Nganda Ngumbi; Applicant: Peter Ngila Ngumbi; Applicant: John Carthese Ngumbi; Applicant: Stephen Museli Ngumbi; Applicant: Amos Kyondu Ngumbi; Applicant: Joseph Munyenyi Ngumbi; Applicant: Christine Ngina Ngumbi; Respondent: Sabina Mumbua Ngumbi
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 99 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application disposed of by applying the ruling in Civil Application No. 20 of 2020 mutatis mutandis.
Judges
J Karanja
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Succession Proceedings
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Family and Children Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Succession Proceedings

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alice Mwikali Ngumbi

Applicant

Sammy Nganda Ngumbi

Applicant

Peter Ngila Ngumbi

Applicant

John Carthese Ngumbi

Applicant

Stephen Museli Ngumbi

Applicant

Amos Kyondu Ngumbi

Applicant

Joseph Munyenyi Ngumbi

Applicant

Christine Ngina Ngumbi

Applicant

Sabina Mumbua Ngumbi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to extension of time to lodge an application for special leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal against part of the High Court ruling should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the present application was identical in parties and prayers to Civil Application No. 20 of 2020, save for being filed by different advocates. The court had already rendered a ruling in the earlier application, and therefore, to avoid duplicity and conflicting decisions, the ruling in Civil Application No. 20 of 2020 would apply mutatis mutandis to the present application. The court thus declined to consider the application afresh and ordered that the previous ruling governs this matter.

Court Disposition

Application disposed of by applying the ruling in Civil Application No. 20 of 2020 mutatis mutandis.

Orders

  • The ruling in Civil Application No. 20 of 2020 shall apply mutatis mutandis to this application.