[2025] KEHC 5751 (KLR)

[2025] KEHC 5751 (KLR)

The court held that an application which has been struck out ceases to exist and cannot be revived by way of review or setting aside. The applicant failed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as there was no discovery of new evidence, mistake, or...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEHC 5751 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Jamin Murunga; Respondent: George Masinde Murunga; Respondent: Eliud Siundu Murunga; Respondent: Ernest Masika Murunga; Respondent: Raymond Wafula Murunga; Respondent: Protus Wanyonyi Murunga
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 3 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Review and Setting Aside of Striking Out Order
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
REA Ougo
Legal Topics
Review of Orders, Striking Out of Applications, Succession Proceedings, Procedural Compliance
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Family and Children Review of Orders Striking Out of Applications Succession Proceedings Procedural Compliance

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

Jamin Murunga

Applicant

George Masinde Murunga

Respondent

Eliud Siundu Murunga

Respondent

Ernest Masika Murunga

Respondent

Raymond Wafula Murunga

Respondent

Protus Wanyonyi Murunga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application for Review and Setting Aside of Striking Out Order

  1. 1 Whether the court can review and set aside an order striking out an application that was not determined on its merits.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
  3. 3 Whether an application that has been struck out can be revived by way of review.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that an application which has been struck out ceases to exist and cannot be revived by way of review or setting aside. The applicant failed to demonstrate compliance with the requirements for review under Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules, as there was no discovery of new evidence, mistake, or error apparent on the face of the record. The appropriate course for the applicant would have been to file a fresh application with the necessary certified orders attached. Since the application sought to review an order striking out a previous application, and there was nothing left to review or set aside, the court declined to grant the orders sought and dismissed the application.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated 8th April 2025 is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.