[2021] KEHC 6769 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 6769 (KLR)

The court found that the main suit and counterclaim were dismissed for want of prosecution over twelve years ago, and no application for reinstatement was made. As such, there is no subsisting suit to support the present application for removal of caution. The applicant's attempt to revive proceedings in a suit that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2021] KEHC 6769 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: John Gakuu Githinji; Respondent: Jackson Muriithi Mararo
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 90 of 1994
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Application to Remove Caution
Outcome
application struck out as incompetent and misconceived
Judges
FN Muchemi
Legal Topics
Removal of Caution, Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Limitation of Actions
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Removal of Caution Abuse of Process Res Judicata Limitation of Actions

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Gakuu Githinji

Applicant

Jackson Muriithi Mararo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Application to Remove Caution

  1. 1 Whether the application for removal of caution is competent given the dismissal of the main suit over twelve years ago.
  2. 2 Whether the application is merited in light of ongoing proceedings in the magistrate's court regarding the same subject matter.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the main suit and counterclaim were dismissed for want of prosecution over twelve years ago, and no application for reinstatement was made. As such, there is no subsisting suit to support the present application for removal of caution. The applicant's attempt to revive proceedings in a suit that ceased to exist constitutes an abuse of the court process. Furthermore, the applicant has already sought similar relief in a pending case before the magistrate's court, making this application duplicative and incompetent. The lapse of time also renders the decree unenforceable under the Limitation of Actions Act. The court therefore struck out the application as misconceived,...

Court Disposition

application struck out as incompetent and misconceived

Orders

  • The application dated 23/06/2020 is struck out with costs for being incompetent.