[2021] KEHC 2413 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 2413 (KLR)

The court found that due to the evolving list of parties and the lack of clear identification of the 2nd applicant in the application dated 5th July 2012, it is not possible to definitively name the 2nd applicant at this stage. The practical solution is to require all advocates to provide the names and current...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 2413 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Jim Kahumbura; Plaintiff: John Kamau; Plaintiff: Solomon Amiani; Defendant: Alam Ja Aid & 57 Others; Applicant: Balwinder Sagod; Applicant: Newton Njiru; Applicant: Chana Kirandep; Applicant: Kihunyororo Julius; Applicant: Kalsi Singhrandeep; Applicant: Mogul Imran; Applicant: Sembi Singh Paramjeet; Applicant: Therru Gurmit; Applicant: Halai Dineshketan; Applicant: Halai Mahesh; Applicant: Khan Asad
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 50 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Directions/order on Party Identification and Status
Outcome
Directions issued for party identification and status update; matter stood over for mention.
Judges
JK Sergon
Legal Topics
Party Identification, Case Management, Status of Parties
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Party Identification Case Management Status of Parties

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

Jim Kahumbura

Plaintiff

John Kamau

Plaintiff

Solomon Amiani

Plaintiff

Alam Ja Aid & 57 Others

Defendant

Balwinder Sagod

Applicant

Newton Njiru

Applicant

Chana Kirandep

Applicant

Kihunyororo Julius

Applicant

Kalsi Singhrandeep

Applicant

Mogul Imran

Applicant

Sembi Singh Paramjeet

Applicant

Therru Gurmit

Applicant

Halai Dineshketan

Applicant

Halai Mahesh

Applicant

Khan Asad

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Directions/order on Party Identification and Status

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd applicant can be identified and named for the purposes of the pending application.
  2. 2 How to address the issue of parties who have passed on during the pendency of the suit.
  3. 3 What directions should be given to ensure accurate party status and case management.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that due to the evolving list of parties and the lack of clear identification of the 2nd applicant in the application dated 5th July 2012, it is not possible to definitively name the 2nd applicant at this stage. The practical solution is to require all advocates to provide the names and current status (alive or deceased) of their clients as at the date of the order. This approach ensures accurate party identification and enables the court to manage the proceedings effectively, especially in light of the deaths of several parties. The matter is to be mentioned on a future date to confirm compliance and issue further directions.

Court Disposition

Directions issued for party identification and status update; matter stood over for mention.

Orders

  • Each advocate to provide the names and status of their clients as at the date of this order.
  • Matter to be mentioned on 30/11/2021 to ascertain compliance and for further orders.