[2020] KEHC 199 (KLR)

[2020] KEHC 199 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant was not notified of the application that led to the ex parte orders and that there were serious issues regarding the transfer and registration of the suit land. The absence of opposition from the respondent and the potential lack of jurisdiction by the lower court to order...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEHC 199 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Diana Rachel Kavedza; Respondent: Andrew Kakai Sabiri
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Succession Cause 124 of 1998
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Orders
Outcome
Application allowed; ex parte orders set aside; substantive application to be heard on merits.
Judges
HK Chemitei
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders, Jurisdiction of Court, Notification of Parties, Land Registration
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Setting Aside Ex Parte Orders Jurisdiction of Court Notification of Parties Land Registration

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diana Rachel Kavedza

Applicant

Andrew Kakai Sabiri

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Succession Cause / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Orders

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte orders made on 7th October 1997 should be set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was properly notified of the application leading to the ex parte orders.
  3. 3 Whether the lower court had jurisdiction to order cancellation of the title to land parcel number 424 Kamukuywa scheme.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was not notified of the application that led to the ex parte orders and that there were serious issues regarding the transfer and registration of the suit land. The absence of opposition from the respondent and the potential lack of jurisdiction by the lower court to order cancellation of title further justified setting aside the ex parte orders. The court allowed the application to set aside the orders and directed that the substantive application be set down for hearing, ensuring that all parties have an opportunity to be heard.

Court Disposition

Application allowed; ex parte orders set aside; substantive application to be heard on merits.

Orders

  • The application dated 29th July 2020 is allowed.
  • The ex parte orders made on 7th October 1997 are set aside.