[2014] KEHC 8309 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 8309 (KLR)

The court held that the present application, seeking to review an order that was itself made on a review application, is expressly prohibited by Order 45, rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. The rule clearly bars any further review applications in such circumstances. As the application is incompetent by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 8309 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Hassan Ibrahim Mohamed (suing as the personal representative of the estate of Ali Adow Mohamed, deceased); Respondent: Alex Odiang Odhiambo; Respondent: Southern Cross Safaris Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 549 of 2010
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Application for Review
Outcome
application struck out as incompetent
Judges
DW Mbuteti
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Preliminary Objection, Application Struck Out
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Review of Court Orders Preliminary Objection Application Struck Out

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 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hassan Ibrahim Mohamed (suing as the personal representative of the estate of Ali Adow Mohamed, deceased)

Applicant

Alex Odiang Odhiambo

Respondent

Southern Cross Safaris Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Application for Review

  1. 1 Whether a second application for review of an order, itself made on review, is competent under Order 45, rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the present application, seeking to review an order that was itself made on a review application, is expressly prohibited by Order 45, rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010. The rule clearly bars any further review applications in such circumstances. As the application is incompetent by operation of law, the court struck it out with costs to the respondent.

Court Disposition

application struck out as incompetent

Orders

  • The application dated 28th January 2014 is struck out with costs to the respondent.