[2012] KEHC 1727 (KLR)

[2012] KEHC 1727 (KLR)

The court found that the application dated 16th February 2012 was a sham because it was supported by an affidavit that was merely a photocopy of the affidavit from the previously dismissed application, with only the date changed. The court held that this amounted to an abuse of the process of the law. The proper...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2012] KEHC 1727 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: H.Z. & Company Ltd; Respondent: Mungai Muchungi Kiaria (Suing on his behalf and the estate of Nelly Njeri Muigai (Deceased))
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 174 of 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to Come on Record by New Advocates After Dismissal of Previous Application for Non Attendance
Outcome
application struck out with costs to the respondent
Legal Topics
Change of Advocates, Fatal Accident Claims, Application Dismissal, Order 12 Civil Procedure Rules
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Tort Law Change of Advocates Fatal Accident Claims Application Dismissal Order 12 Civil Procedure Rules

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 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

H.Z. & Company Ltd

Appellant

Mungai Muchungi Kiaria (Suing on his behalf and the estate of Nelly Njeri Muigai (Deceased))

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Application for Leave to Come on Record by New Advocates After Dismissal of Previous Application for Non Attendance

  1. 1 Whether the application dated 16th February 2012 for leave to come on record by a new firm of advocates should be allowed.
  2. 2 Whether the application was properly supported by a valid affidavit and complied with procedural requirements under Order 12 Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. 3 Whether the application constituted an abuse of court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application dated 16th February 2012 was a sham because it was supported by an affidavit that was merely a photocopy of the affidavit from the previously dismissed application, with only the date changed. The court held that this amounted to an abuse of the process of the law. The proper procedure under Order 12 Civil Procedure Rules would have been to apply to set aside the dismissal order or to file a new application deponed to by the appellant or other relevant persons. The court struck out the application with costs to the respondent and ordered that a copy of the ruling be forwarded to the advocate complaints commission for disciplinary consideration.

Court Disposition

application struck out with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 16th February 2012 is struck out with costs to the respondent.
  • A copy of this ruling is to be forwarded to the advocate complaints commission for disciplinary action.