[2020] KEHC 10029 (KLR)
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to re-open and determine the Notice of Motion application dated 22nd September 2014, as the same had already been heard and dismissed by a judge of equal and competent jurisdiction. The principle of res judicata precludes the plaintiff from re-litigating the same...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 10029 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Edward Kings Onyancha Maina T/A Matra International Associates; Defendant: China Jiangsu Corporation; Defendant: James Ochieng Oduol; Defendant: RPV Wendoh; Defendant: Joseph Nyamu; Defendant: Mary G. Mugo; Defendant: K.H. Rawal; Defendant: John Philip Ransley; Defendant: Hon. Chief Justice; Defendant: The Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 440 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Re Open Hearing of Notice of Motion
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's application to re-open hearing and determination of Notice of Motion dated 22nd September 2014 is disallowed.
- Judges
- CM Kamau
- Legal Topics
- Res Judicata, Re Litigation, Notice of Motion, Leave of Court
- 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
Edward Kings Onyancha Maina T/A Matra International Associates
Plaintiff
China Jiangsu Corporation
Defendant
James Ochieng Oduol
Defendant
RPV Wendoh
Defendant
Joseph Nyamu
Defendant
Mary G. Mugo
Defendant
K.H. Rawal
Defendant
John Philip Ransley
Defendant
Hon. Chief Justice
Defendant
The Attorney General
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Re Open Hearing of Notice of Motion
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can re-open and determine an application already decided by a judge of equal and competent jurisdiction.
- 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to re-litigate the Notice of Motion application dated 22nd September 2014.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to re-open and determine the Notice of Motion application dated 22nd September 2014, as the same had already been heard and dismissed by a judge of equal and competent jurisdiction. The principle of res judicata precludes the plaintiff from re-litigating the same application, regardless of his dissatisfaction with the previous outcome. The proper recourse for the plaintiff, if aggrieved, would have been to appeal the decision, not to file a fresh application before the same court. The court further directed that to prevent abuse of process, the plaintiff shall not file any further applications against the defendants on the same complaints without...
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's application to re-open hearing and determination of Notice of Motion dated 22nd September 2014 is disallowed.
Orders
- The plaintiff's request to re-open the hearing and determination of his Notice of Motion application dated 22nd September 2014 is disallowed.
- The plaintiff shall not file any application against the defendants without leave of the court.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
CIVIL CASE NO 440 OF 2011
FORMERLY NAKURU HCCC NO 299 OF 2009
FORMERLY NAKURU HCCC 1227 OF 1996
FORMERLY NAKURU HCCC 125 /93 AND NAKURU 132/93
EDWARD KINGS ONYANCHA MAINA
T/A MATRA INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATES....................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CHINA JIANGSU CORPORATION..........................................1ST DEFENDANT
JAMES OCHIENG ODUOL......................................................2ND DEFENDANT
RPV WENDOH..........................................................................3RD DEFENDANT
JOSEPH NYAMU......................................................................4TH DEFENDANT
MARY G. MUGO......................................................................5TH DEFENDANT
K.H. RAWAL.............................................................................6TH DEFENDANT
JOHN PHILIP RANSLEY.........................................................7TH DEFENDANT
HON. CHIEF JUSTICE............................................................8TH DEFENDANT
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL.....................................................9TH DEFENDANT
RULING (4)
1. At the time of reserving several Rulings in respect of this matter, the Plaintiff sought to have this court deliver a Ruling in respect of his Notice of Motion application dated 22nd September 2014 and filed on 30th September 2014. Mabeya J heard and dismissed the same. This position was correctly pointed out by the 1st and 2nd Defendant herein.
2. This court cannot therefore seat and make a determination of the same application, the same having been decided by a judge of equal and competent jurisdiction. The Plaintiff cannot re-litigate the same application no matter how much he felt aggrieved by the decision.
DISPOSITION
3. For the foregoing reasons, the upshot of this court’s direction was that the Plaintiff’s request to re-open the hearing and determination of his Notice of Motion application dated 22nd September 2014 and filed on 30th September 2014 was misconceived and the same is hereby disallowed.
4. To avoid numerous applications being filed against the Defendants in respect of the same complaints that have been raised herein, it is hereby directed that the Plaintiff shall not file any application against them without leave of the court.
5. It is so ordered.
DATED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 30th day of July 2020
J. KAMAU
JUDGE