[2021] KEHC 12746 (KLR)
The court held that Order 45 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules expressly prohibits the court from entertaining a second application for review where the order sought to be reviewed was itself made on a review application. Since the applicant's current application sought to review an order that had already been...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] KEHC 12746 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Harjinder Kaur Dhanjil; Respondent: Sukhdev Kaur; Respondent: Manjit Kaur Chana
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 1491 of 2017
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Review
- Outcome
- Application struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondents.
- Judges
- AO Muchelule
- Legal Topics
- Review of Court Orders, Succession Disputes, Grant of Letters of Administration
- 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
Harjinder Kaur Dhanjil
Applicant
Sukhdev Kaur
Respondent
Manjit Kaur Chana
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court can entertain a second application for review under Order 45 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
- 2 Whether the application dated 23rd November 2020 is competent in light of the previous review applications.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that Order 45 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules expressly prohibits the court from entertaining a second application for review where the order sought to be reviewed was itself made on a review application. Since the applicant's current application sought to review an order that had already been made on a previous review, the court was barred from considering its merits. The application was therefore incompetent and was struck out with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
Application struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondents.
Orders
- The application dated 23rd November 2020 is struck out as incompetent.
- The applicant shall pay the costs of the application to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
20 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
FAMILY DIVISION
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO. 1491 OF 2017
HARJINDER KAUR DHANJIL.......................................APPLICANT
VERSUS
SUKHDEV KAUR................................................. 1ST RESPONDENT
MANJIT KAUR CHANA......................................2ND RESPONDENT
RULING
1. The application dated 23rd November 2020 by Harjinder Kaur Dhanjil against her sisters Sukhdev Kaur and Manjit Kaur Chana seeks the review of the orders of Justice J.N. Onyiego made on 28th September 2020 in this matter. The orders of 28th September 2020 substantially dismissed the application dated 23rd January 2020 by the same applicant against the same respondents. The application had been brought to review, vary and/or set aside the orders contained in the ruling delivered on 17th December 2019 by the same court. In the ruling, the court had nominated the Public Trustee to petition for the grant of letters of administration intestate in place of the applicant and the respondents who, together with the other family members, had been disputing over who should petition for the grant.
2. The estate in question relates to Gurdial Kaur Sihra who died intestate on 21st October 2017 while domiciled in Kenya. The parties herein are some of her children. She left a substantive estate. The children could not agree on who should petition for the grant. Even when the court on 25th September 2018 asked the applicant and the respondents to jointly petition for the grant, they could not agree and therefore failed to file the petition.
3. The application dated 23rd January 2020 and the instant application were under Order 45 rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
4. There is no dispute that the preliminary objection dated 4th February 2021 filed by the respondents in answer to the application is merited. Under Order 45 rule 6of the Civil Procedure Rules:-
“No application to review an order made on an application for a review of a decree or order passed or made on a review shall be entertained.”
It is clear that whatever the merits of the instant application, the rule has stopped the court from entertaining it.
5. The result is that the application is incompetent and is struck out with costs.
DATED AND DELIVERED NAIROBI THIS 25TH DAY OF MARCH 2021.
A.O. MUCHELULE
JUDGE