[2019] KEELC 707 (KLR)

[2019] KEELC 707 (KLR)

The court found that Meru HCC No. 321 of 1993 had abated as per the ruling of Judge Njoroge delivered on 6.3.2013, which was included in the defendant's own bundle of documents. Since the suit no longer exists and there was no evidence of an appeal or review against the abatement ruling, the defendant cannot insist...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEELC 707 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Glory Nkuene Rufus; Plaintiff: Martin Koome Kiambati; Defendant: George Kirima alias George Kirima Mugambi
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 95 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Defendant's Application to Stay Proceedings Pending Determination of Another Suit
Outcome
Defendant's application for stay of proceedings dismissed; suit to proceed to hearing.
Legal Topics
Abatement of Suit, Succession Disputes, Stay of Proceedings
Source Language
en
Land and Property Abatement of Suit Succession Disputes Stay of 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glory Nkuene Rufus

Plaintiff

Martin Koome Kiambati

Plaintiff

George Kirima alias George Kirima Mugambi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Land and Property Suit / Ruling on Defendant's Application to Stay Proceedings Pending Determination of Another Suit

  1. 1 Whether the current suit should be stayed pending the hearing and determination of Meru HCC No. 321 of 1993.
  2. 2 Whether Meru HCC No. 321 of 1993 has abated and is no longer in existence.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's application for stay of proceedings is merited.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Meru HCC No. 321 of 1993 had abated as per the ruling of Judge Njoroge delivered on 6.3.2013, which was included in the defendant's own bundle of documents. Since the suit no longer exists and there was no evidence of an appeal or review against the abatement ruling, the defendant cannot insist on staying the current proceedings pending the determination of a non-existent suit. The defendant's application for stay was therefore dismissed, and the court directed that the present case should proceed to hearing.

Court Disposition

Defendant's application for stay of proceedings dismissed; suit to proceed to hearing.

Orders

  • The defendant's application for stay of proceedings is dismissed.
  • The present suit shall proceed to hearing.