[2012] KEHC 4665 (KLR)
The court found that the orders sought to be enforced had already been discharged by the lower court, rendering the application for their enforcement moot and incapable of compliance. The continued prosecution of the motion was deemed an abuse of the court process and contrary to the overriding objective of civil...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 4665 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: John Njoroge Gichora; Respondent: Gideon Numa
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Miscellaneous Civil Application 105 of 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to respondent
- Legal Topics
- Dismissal of Application, Enforcement of Court Orders, Abuse of Process
- 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
John Njoroge Gichora
Applicant
Gideon Numa
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for dismissal has been overtaken by events.
- 2 Whether the orders sought to be enforced are incapable of compliance.
- 3 Whether continued prosecution of the motion constitutes abuse of court process.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the orders sought to be enforced had already been discharged by the lower court, rendering the application for their enforcement moot and incapable of compliance. The continued prosecution of the motion was deemed an abuse of the court process and contrary to the overriding objective of civil litigation. The applicant was found not to be candid and appeared to be avoiding compliance with the court order, but since the orders were no longer enforceable, the application was dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to respondent
Orders
- The application dated 15/12/2011 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
19 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 105 OF 2010
JOHN NJOROGE GICHORA ...........APPLICANT/RESPONDENT
VERSUS
GIDEON NUMA................................. RESPONDENT/APPLICANT
RULING
Notice of Motion dated 15/12/2011 seeking the dismissal of application dated 17/3/2010 has been overtaken by events.
The lower court which made orders has already found and held that orders sought to be enforced through the motion are incapable of being complied with. The lower court has therefore discharged those injunction orders. The continued prosecution of this motion is abuse of court process and oppressive to applicant and is also against the overriding objective of civil litigation.
The application is supported by affidavit of Gideon Numa the respondent who has attached Exh. GNI as the orders referred to. It is sworn that the Respondent seeks to commit him to civil jail for disobeying those orders.
Mr. Uma appealed to High Court appeal 42A of 2010 which is still pending. He also applied for stay of execution which has now been discharged. Then by time stay was discharged there were changes and it became incapable of compliance without orders.
On 10/11/2010 he applied to discharge the orders. Ruling made on 1/2/2011 and 22/7/2011 marked GN3a and (b). The consequences were to render respondent appeal and the motion to be overtaken by events. On 30/8/2011 his advocate wrote to applicant to withdraw these proceedings but the advocate failed to respond.
In his replying affidavit the respondent admits that the situation has changed but states that the appeal lodged and stay application are both not withdrawn. Also that the landscape adjacent to the road has changed but situation remains the same. The applicant had dumped soil next to his plot which has not been removed. It is therefore not true that the order is incapable of enforcement. The applicant is trying to avoid to comply with court order.
Upon reading the replying affidavit I do not find that the applicant application is truthful. He is not candid and he is trying to avoid complying with court order which is subject to appeal still pending into court.
I therefore dismiss the application with costs to respondent.
Dated and delivered this 23rd day of March, 2012.
KHAMINWA
JUDGE