[2019] KEELC 1370 (KLR)
The court found, upon reviewing the record, that no interlocutory judgment was entered against the 3rd to 12th defendants on 18/3/2019 as alleged by the applicants. The proceedings on that date only involved the consensual admission of documents and commencement of hearing de novo, with no judgment entered. Since the application to set aside interlocutory judgment was based on the existence of such a judgment, which did not exist, the application was incompetent. Consequently, the court struck out the application without considering the substantive issues or granting any of the prayers sought.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 1370 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Jackson Ekim Omaido; Defendant: Lucia Ngaira Omunga; Defendant: Roselyne Omunga; Defendant: Clara Andabwa; Defendant: Nelson Makokha; Defendant: John Okwaroi; Defendant: Stanley Ekoine Juma; Defendant: George Wafula; Defendant: Kennedy Mumbwani; Defendant: Boniface Nyongesa; Defendant: Alfred Chamaketi; Defendant: Nambucha Kirikacha; Defendant: Alendander Imoni
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Kitale
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Judgment Date
- 3 October 2019
- Case Number
- Land Case 22 of 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Interlocutory Judgment
- Outcome
- application struck out
- Judges
- FM Njoroge
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Judgment, Interlocutory Judgment, Service of Process, Recovery of Land
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Jackson Ekim Omaido
Plaintiff
Lucia Ngaira Omunga
Defendant
Roselyne Omunga
Defendant
Clara Andabwa
Defendant
Nelson Makokha
Defendant
John Okwaroi
Defendant
Stanley Ekoine Juma
Defendant
George Wafula
Defendant
Kennedy Mumbwani
Defendant
Boniface Nyongesa
Defendant
Alfred Chamaketi
Defendant
Nambucha Kirikacha
Defendant
Alendander Imoni
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Interlocutory Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether interlocutory judgment was entered against the 3rd to 12th defendants on 18/3/2019.
- 2 Whether the application to set aside interlocutory judgment is competent in the absence of such judgment.
- 3 Whether the court should grant leave to file defence and award costs.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found, upon reviewing the record, that no interlocutory judgment was entered against the 3rd to 12th defendants on 18/3/2019 as alleged by the applicants. The proceedings on that date only involved the consensual admission of documents and commencement of hearing de novo, with no judgment entered. Since the application to set aside interlocutory judgment was based on the existence of such a judgment, which did not exist, the application was incompetent. Consequently, the court struck out the application without considering the substantive issues or granting any of the prayers sought.
Court Disposition
application struck out
Orders
- The application dated 23/7/2019 is struck out.
- No orders as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment