[2024] KEHC 7333 (KLR)

[2024] KEHC 7333 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant, Stephen Kimonye Ibutu, continues to occupy land parcel Abothuguchi/Githongo/4639 in defiance of express court orders, despite holding title to a different parcel (Abothuguchi/Githongo/4641). The applicant has not challenged the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant or the prior...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEHC 7333 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Stephen Kimonye Ibutu; Respondent: Japheth Guantai Ibutu; Respondent: Ismail Kaburu M’Ibutu
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 2 of 2019
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Notice of Motion Dated 5th May 2023
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent
Judges
TW Cherere
Legal Topics
Confirmation of Grant, Vacant Possession, Eviction Orders, Finality of Litigation
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Confirmation of Grant Vacant Possession Eviction Orders Finality of Litigation

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Kimonye Ibutu

Applicant

Japheth Guantai Ibutu

Respondent

Ismail Kaburu M’Ibutu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Notice of Motion Dated 5th May 2023

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be allowed to continue occupying land parcel No. Abothuguchi/Githongo/4639 despite previous court orders.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's continued occupation constitutes defiance of court orders and an abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant, Stephen Kimonye Ibutu, continues to occupy land parcel Abothuguchi/Githongo/4639 in defiance of express court orders, despite holding title to a different parcel (Abothuguchi/Githongo/4641). The applicant has not challenged the Certificate of Confirmation of Grant or the prior ruling directing him to vacate. The present application was deemed an attempt to circumvent final court orders, which the court will not permit. The principle of finality in litigation requires that parties abide by decisions once made, and repeated applications on the same issue amount to an abuse of process. Consequently, the application was dismissed as unmerited.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated 5th May, 2023 is dismissed.
  • Costs awarded to the 1st respondent.