[2019] KEHC 3946 (KLR)

[2019] KEHC 3946 (KLR)

The court found that the application dated 6th March, 2017, for which a ruling date had been reserved, had already been marked as withdrawn by consent of the parties on 16th October, 2017. As such, there was no longer any live application before the court for determination. The court held that it could not proceed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] KEHC 3946 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Priscilla Mumbua Kilonzo; Respondent: Phoebe Mbeneka Kilonzo; Protestor: Daniel Kilonzo; Protestor: Francis Kilonzo; Objector: Shadrack Musyoki; Interested Party: Benard Muteti Mung’ata
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 261 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Order on Withdrawn Application
Outcome
Application marked as withdrawn; no ruling delivered.
Judges
GV Odunga
Legal Topics
Succession, Estate Distribution, Consent Orders
Source Language
en
Family and Children Succession Estate Distribution Consent Orders

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

Priscilla Mumbua Kilonzo

Applicant

Phoebe Mbeneka Kilonzo

Respondent

Daniel Kilonzo

Protestor

Francis Kilonzo

Protestor

Shadrack Musyoki

Objector

Benard Muteti Mung’ata

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Order on Withdrawn Application

  1. 1 Whether the application dated 6th March, 2017 was still pending for determination.
  2. 2 Whether the court could deliver a ruling on an application already marked as withdrawn.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application dated 6th March, 2017, for which a ruling date had been reserved, had already been marked as withdrawn by consent of the parties on 16th October, 2017. As such, there was no longer any live application before the court for determination. The court held that it could not proceed to deliver a ruling on a non-existent application, and the matter was accordingly marked as such. The court reaffirmed the binding nature of consent orders and the principle that judicial time should not be expended on applications that have been withdrawn by the parties themselves.

Court Disposition

Application marked as withdrawn; no ruling delivered.

Orders

  • The application dated 6th March, 2017 is marked as withdrawn and no ruling shall be delivered thereon.