[2009] KEHC 1302 (KLR)

[2009] KEHC 1302 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any valid grounds for review or setting aside the consent order dated 28/03/2007. The issues raised by the applicant had already been compromised and settled by the consent, and the applicant's attempt to revive them was barred by the doctrine of res judicata....

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] KEHC 1302 (KLR)
Parties
Respondent: J.B.S. Halake; Applicant: Burrel Engineering Co Ltd
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
30 October 2009
Case Number
Civil Suit 2318 of 1997
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Review or Set Aside Consent Order
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Consent Orders, Review of Judgments, Res Judicata, Execution of Decrees
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Consent Orders Review of Judgments Res Judicata Execution of Decrees

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J.B.S. Halake

Respondent

Burrel Engineering Co Ltd

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Review or Set Aside Consent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the consent order dated 28/03/2007 should be reviewed or set aside.
  2. 2 Whether the grounds advanced by the applicant meet the threshold for review or setting aside a consent order.
  3. 3 Whether the issues raised are res judicata.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any valid grounds for review or setting aside the consent order dated 28/03/2007. The issues raised by the applicant had already been compromised and settled by the consent, and the applicant's attempt to revive them was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. The court emphasized that the applicant's continued non-compliance with the consent order and repeated interlocutory applications were unjustified and that litigation must come to an end. The application was dismissed for lack of merit, and the applicant was cautioned against further unnecessary applications.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The Notice of Motion dated 9th March 2009 is dismissed with costs to the Judgment Creditor.