[2008] KEHC 1752 (KLR)
The court held that the application was not res judicata because the previous application had not been determined on its merits. However, the court found that it is improper and an abuse of the court process to file a fresh application on similar grounds without first seeking to set aside the dismissal of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 1752 (KLR)
- Parties
- Petitioner: Mary Kimoi Sang; Respondent: Charles K. Kandie
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Succession Cause 475 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Succession Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- application struck out
- Judges
- DK Maraga
- Legal Topics
- Revocation of Grant, Res Judicata, Abuse of Process, Dismissal for Non Attendance
- 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
Mary Kimoi Sang
Petitioner
Charles K. Kandie
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Succession Cause / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for revocation of grant is res judicata due to prior dismissal for non-attendance.
- 2 Whether filing a fresh application without seeking reinstatement of the dismissed one constitutes an abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application was not res judicata because the previous application had not been determined on its merits. However, the court found that it is improper and an abuse of the court process to file a fresh application on similar grounds without first seeking to set aside the dismissal of the earlier application for non-attendance, as provided for under Order 9B Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The proper procedure would have been to apply for reinstatement of the dismissed application rather than instituting a new one. Consequently, the court struck out the applicant's summons for revocation of grant with costs to the petitioner.
Court Disposition
application struck out
Orders
- The applicant's summons for revocation of grant dated 8th June 2007 is struck out.
- Costs awarded to the petitioner.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
15 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
Succession Cause 475 of 1998
IN THE MATTER OF THE ESTATE OF KIPSANG KANDIE (DECEASED)
MARY KIMOI SANG………………….............................……..…..PETITIONER
VERSUS
CHARLES K. KANDIE…………………..........................……...RESPONDENT
RULING
In his Summons for Revocation of Grant brought under Section 46 of the Law of Succession Act and Rule 44 of the Probate and Administration Rules, Charles K. Kandie seeks the revocation of the Grant of Letters of Administration issued in this cause on 13th March 2002 to Mary Kimoi Sang, the widow of the deceased, on the ground that it was fraudulently obtained by making a false statement and concealment of material facts.
Before the application could be heard Mr. Kipkenei for the Respondent raised a preliminary objection written notice of which he had given. He argued that a similar application by the applicant having been dismissed by the Hon. Justice D. M. Musinga for non attendance this matter is res judicata and the institution of this application without seeking to reinstate the one dismissed for non attendance is an abuse of the process of court.
Mr. Githui for the applicant does not share the same view. He submitted that the matter is not res judicata. As it has not been decided on merit and the applicant is entitled to bring an application similar to the one dismissed for non attendance if he explains the cause for his failure to attend court on the date the earlier application was dismissed.
I have considered this preliminary objection. I agree with Mr. Githui that this matter is not res judicata. A matter is res judicata if it has been decided on merit. See Kibogy Vs Chemweno [1981] KLR 35 and Wanguhu Vs Kania [1987] KLR 51. This one has not.
I, however, do not agree with Mr. Githui that once a matter is dismissed for non attendance a party can just ignore that dismissal and bring another application on similar grounds. Order 9B Rule 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules provides for the setting aside of a judgment entered against a party or an order dismissing his suit or application for non attendance. It is an abuse of the process of the court to ignore that application and file a fresh one on similar grounds. I therefore strike out the Applicant’s summons for revocation of grant dated 8th June 2007 with costs to the petitioner.
DATED and delivered at Nakuru this 17th day of July 2008.
D. K. MARAGA
JUDGE