[2011] KEHC 3561 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant's application was res judicata, as the same issue had previously been determined by courts of competent and concurrent jurisdiction. The applicant, if dissatisfied, should have appealed to the Court of Appeal rather than filing repetitive applications before the High Court. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2011] KEHC 3561 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Joseph Karanja Gitau; Respondent: Stephen Kariuki Gitau
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Succession Cause 2217 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Dismissed Application
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Judges
- LK Kimaru
- Legal Topics
- Res Judicata, Reinstatement of Dismissed Suit, Successions, Abuse of Process
- 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
Joseph Karanja Gitau
Applicant
Stephen Kariuki Gitau
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Reinstate Dismissed Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the applicant's application to reinstate a previously dismissed application is res judicata.
- 2 Whether the High Court can review or overturn decisions made by courts of concurrent jurisdiction.
- 3 Whether repeated applications for the same relief constitute an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant's application was res judicata, as the same issue had previously been determined by courts of competent and concurrent jurisdiction. The applicant, if dissatisfied, should have appealed to the Court of Appeal rather than filing repetitive applications before the High Court. The court emphasized that relitigating the same matter undermines the finality of litigation and constitutes an abuse of the court process. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- The application dated 2nd December 2010 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
SUCCESSION CAUSE NO.2217 OF 2009
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF GITAU BUBI (DECEASED)
JOSEPH KARANJA GITAU…………………….…….……………………………………APPLICANT
VERSUS
STEPHEN KARIUKI GITAU….……………………………………………………………OBJECTOR
R U L I N G
Before me is an application by Joseph Karanja Gitau, the applicant, seeking to have the orders which were issued on 1st October 2003 dismissing his application for want of prosecution reinstated to hearing. From the submissions made by counsel for the respondents and from this court’s perusal of the court record, it was evident that this is not the first time that the applicant has presented to the court such an application. Applications similar to the present one have been considered respectively by Koome J, Dulu J and Rawal J. All the said judges ruled that the applicant’s applications did not have merit. It appears that the applicant was seriously aggrieved by the said decisions of the court. The said courts are courts of concurrent jurisdiction.
This court cannot sit an appeal against the decision of the said three (3) courts which are courts of similar jurisdiction. The applicant ought to have filed appeal against the said decision to the Court of Appeal if he was dissatisfied. By filing multiple applications before this court, the applicant will not help his cause and infact, it may result in the applicant irreparably damaging his case.
I hold that the present application filed by the applicant is res judicata. It has been previously considered and a determination rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. It cannot be relitigated again before this court. The application dated 2nd December 2010 is hereby dismissed with costs to the respondents.
DATED AT NAIROBI THIS 23RD DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011
L. KIMARU
JUDGE