[2016] KEHC 149 (KLR)
The court found that the application dated 6th July, 2015 was res judicata as it sought to reinstate an application that had already been dismissed on similar grounds. The applicant had previously sought leave to file judicial review proceedings, which was declined, and subsequent similar applications were also...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 149 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Godwin Ouma Makube; Respondent: Moses Duru Ambasa; Respondent: County Land Registrar Busia; Respondent: Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Application 161 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- application struck out with costs
- Judges
- A Kaniaru
- Legal Topics
- Res Judicata, Abuse of Court Process, Reinstatement of Application, Judicial Review Leave
- 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
Godwin Ouma Makube
Applicant
Moses Duru Ambasa
Respondent
County Land Registrar Busia
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application dated 6th July, 2015 is res judicata in light of previous dismissed applications.
- 2 Whether the applicant is abusing the court process by repeatedly filing similar applications.
- 3 Whether the application should be struck out for failure to comply with procedural requirements.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application dated 6th July, 2015 was res judicata as it sought to reinstate an application that had already been dismissed on similar grounds. The applicant had previously sought leave to file judicial review proceedings, which was declined, and subsequent similar applications were also dismissed. The court noted a pattern of indolence and abuse of the court process by the applicant, who repeatedly failed to appear for hearings and continued to file matters seeking the same relief already denied. Upholding the preliminary objection, the court concluded that the application constituted an abuse of process and should be struck out with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application struck out with costs
Orders
- The application dated 6th July, 2015 is struck out.
- Costs awarded to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT BUSIA.
MISC. APP. NO. 161 OF 2014.
GODWIN OUMA MAKUBE………………….…………….APPLICANT
VERSUS
MOSES DURU AMBASA ………………………....1ST RESPONDENT
COUNTY LAND REGISTRAR BUSIA……………,2ND RESPONDENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL…………………………….3RD RESPONDENT
RULING.
1. This is a ruling on a preliminary objection argued before me by Ipapu for the first respondent on 1/12/2015. The notice of that objection had been filed earlier on 27/10/2015. The hearing date of the objection had been taken by counsel on both sides on 16/11/2015. On the hearing date (1/12/2015) however, Jumba for the applicant did not appear. The applicant was also not there. The court decided to proceed. And proceed, it did.
2. The notice of the objection simply stated that the application dated 7th July, 2015 was an affront to the applicable law in that it was not seeking to appeal or review the ruling dated 23/4/2015.
3. During hearing, Ipapu urged the court to strike out the application. The application itself sought reinstatement of an earlier application dated 17th December, 2015 where the court had given a ruling. The ruling dismissed that application. According to Ipapu, the applicant is creating a circus. It is clear that the applicant had long ago come to court seeking leave to file judicial review proceedings. The court declined to grant leave. The application dated 17th December, 2015 was by the same applicant seeking similar leave. It, too, was dismissed. The applicants now wants that application reinstated.
4. When the preliminary objection herein was being argued neither the applicant nor his counsel was present. This is exactly the same scenario that obtained when the application sought to be reinstated was being heard. Talk of indolence; and this one comes very close to it. It is not lost on me that one of the reasons why the application sought to be reinstated was dismissed is that it was found to be RESJUDICATA an earlier application that had also been dismissed. Ipapu therefore seems to have a point when he talks of circus.
5. It is worth pointing out too that the applicant was found to be in abuse of the court process The situation is not much different here. I agree with Ipapu that the applicant is trying to create a circus. He seems to be in the habit of filing matters and not appearing for hearing. His first application was rejected. His second application was rejected too. Now this is yet another attempt to get what has already been refused. The applicant is trying to flog a dead horse. He cannot succeed . Ipapu's objection is therefore upheld and the application dated 6th July, 2015 is hereby struck out with costs to the respondents.
A. K. KANIARU
JUDGE
DATED AND DELIVERED ON 16TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016.
IN THE PRESENCE OF;
PLAINTIFF………………………………………………..
1ST RESPONDENT………………………………………
2ND RESPONDENT………………………………………
JUDGE.