[2008] KEHC 1455 (KLR)
The court found that the application was res judicata, as the same issues between the same parties had already been determined in two previous applications, both of which were dismissed. The court held that it cannot re-open matters that have already been conclusively decided. The present application was deemed...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 1455 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Applicant (Name not provided); Respondent: Respondent (Name not provided)
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 2217 of 2000
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Previous Orders
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs; applicant barred from making further applications on the same prayers
- Judges
- KH Rawal
- Legal Topics
- Res Judicata, Abuse of Process, Setting Aside Orders
- 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
Applicant (Name not provided)
Applicant
Respondent (Name not provided)
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Previous Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application to set aside the orders made on 1st October, 2003 is res judicata.
- 2 Whether the applicant is barred from re-litigating the same issues previously determined by the court.
- 3 Whether the present application constitutes an abuse of the court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application was res judicata, as the same issues between the same parties had already been determined in two previous applications, both of which were dismissed. The court held that it cannot re-open matters that have already been conclusively decided. The present application was deemed incompetent and an abuse of the court process, and the applicant was barred from making further applications on the same prayers. The court emphasized the need for finality in litigation and the importance of upholding the doctrine of res judicata to prevent endless litigation and abuse of judicial resources.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs; applicant barred from making further applications on the same prayers
Orders
- The application dated 22nd February, 2008 is dismissed with costs.
- The applicant is barred from making any application in respect to the prayers made therein.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS)
Succession Cause 2217 of 2000
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF GITAU BUBI – DECEASED
RULING
I have before me an application dated 22nd February, 2008 seeking to set aside orders made on 1st October, 2003 and an application dated 6th November, 2001 to be heard afresh.
The applicant who appeared in person did agree that he has made similar two applications and they both were dismissed on 21st October, 2006.
I have read both these rulings and confirm that I have nothing useful to add, except to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Respondent that the present application is Res Judicata and this court cannot re-open the issue raised by the applicant. I do find that this application is absolutely incompetent and an abuse of the court process having been barred by the earlier two rulings between the same parties and on the same issue.
The application is thus dismissed with costs and the applicant is barred from making any application in respect to the prayers made therein. This issue should rest here.
I also order that the applicant pay costs of the Respondent.
Dated and signed at Nairobi this 22nd day of September, 2008.
K. H. RAWAL
JUDGE
22. 9.08