[2015] KEHC 191 (KLR)

[2015] KEHC 191 (KLR)

The court found that the hearing date for the application was fixed by consent of both parties. On the scheduled date, neither the applicants nor their counsel appeared in court to prosecute the application, and no explanation for their absence was provided. The court held that in such circumstances, it had no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEHC 191 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Evans Nyarango Osindi; Applicant: Justus Ongera Ombachi; Applicant: Justine Mochache Orina; Defendant: Monicah Bina Osindi; Respondent: Mokua Najua Ochenge
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kisii
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 396 of 2014
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Eviction, Contempt, and Intermeddling
Outcome
Application dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondent.
Judges
WA Okwany
Legal Topics
Succession, Probate and Administration, Intermeddling With Estate, Contempt of Court, Eviction From Estate Property
Source Language
en
Family and Children Succession Probate and Administration Intermeddling With Estate Contempt of Court Eviction From Estate Property

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evans Nyarango Osindi

Applicant

Justus Ongera Ombachi

Applicant

Justine Mochache Orina

Applicant

Monicah Bina Osindi

Defendant

Mokua Najua Ochenge

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Eviction, Contempt, and Intermeddling

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be evicted from LR. No. WEST MUGIRANGO/BOSAMARO WEST/17.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is in contempt of a court order.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent has intermeddled with the deceased's property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the hearing date for the application was fixed by consent of both parties. On the scheduled date, neither the applicants nor their counsel appeared in court to prosecute the application, and no explanation for their absence was provided. The court held that in such circumstances, it had no option but to dismiss the application for want of prosecution. The application dated 26th November 2014 was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed for want of prosecution with costs to the respondent.

Orders

  • The application dated 26th November 2014 is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.