[2008] KEHC 1838 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 1838 (KLR)

The court held that since the suit had been withdrawn by consent of both parties on 21st May 2007, and no application had been made to review or reinstate the suit, there was no suit in existence. As a result, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the present application for variation of orders or substitution...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] KEHC 1838 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Joseph Kibuba Kioko; Plaintiff: Judas Mbili Ndawa; Plaintiff: Patric Pius Mutune Katubi; Defendant: Mangu Ngolo; Defendant: Kyanzavi Farmers Company Limited
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 101 of 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Post Settlement Application
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
MA Warsame
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Suit, Consent Orders, Company Bank Accounts, Variation of Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Withdrawal of Suit Consent Orders Company Bank Accounts Variation of Orders

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joseph Kibuba Kioko

Plaintiff

Judas Mbili Ndawa

Plaintiff

Patric Pius Mutune Katubi

Plaintiff

Mangu Ngolo

Defendant

Kyanzavi Farmers Company Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Post Settlement Application

  1. 1 Whether the court can entertain an application for variation of orders when the main suit has been withdrawn by consent.
  2. 2 Whether the application for substitution of bank signatories is maintainable in the absence of an existing suit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that since the suit had been withdrawn by consent of both parties on 21st May 2007, and no application had been made to review or reinstate the suit, there was no suit in existence. As a result, the court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the present application for variation of orders or substitution of bank signatories. Entertaining such an application would amount to an abuse of the court process. The application was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with no orders as to costs.