[2014] KECA 531 (KLR)

[2014] KECA 531 (KLR)

The Court found that this application was identical in all material respects to Application Sup 13 of 2013, including the parties, issues, and submissions. The applicant, despite insisting on a separate hearing, adopted the same submissions as in the earlier application. The Court determined that there was no need...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KECA 531 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Edward Kings Onyancha Maina; Respondent: Turkana Drilling Consortium (K) Ltd; Respondent: Lundin Kenya BV; Respondent: Africa Oil Corporation; Respondent: Republic of Kenya; Respondent: PS Ministry of Energy Kenya
Court
Court of Appeal
Court Station
Court of Appeal at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Application 14 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Judges
J Karanja, CM Kariuki, PM Mwilu
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Appellate Jurisdiction, Dismissal of Application
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Appellate Jurisdiction Dismissal of Application

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Edward Kings Onyancha Maina

Applicant

Turkana Drilling Consortium (K) Ltd

Respondent

Lundin Kenya BV

Respondent

Africa Oil Corporation

Respondent

Republic of Kenya

Respondent

PS Ministry of Energy Kenya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to leave to appeal to the Supreme Court from the ruling of the Court of Appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the issues raised in this application are distinct from those in Application Sup 13 of 2013.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that this application was identical in all material respects to Application Sup 13 of 2013, including the parties, issues, and submissions. The applicant, despite insisting on a separate hearing, adopted the same submissions as in the earlier application. The Court determined that there was no need to write a separate ruling and applied the reasoning and outcome of Sup 13 of 2013 to this matter. Consequently, the application was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed with costs to the respondents.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondents

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the respondents.