[2013] KEHC 446 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 446 (KLR)

The court held that since the main suit had already been struck out for being an abuse of the court process, there was no existing suit upon which the court could grant the orders sought by the applicant. The court further advised the applicant that the proper course of action would be to make an application before...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 446 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Julius Njikari Kinyua; Applicant: Cyrus Kaigwa Kinyua; Applicant: Sospeter Mwangi Kinyua; Applicant: Paul Munyi Kiyua; Applicant: Wamarwa Kinyua Gichira; Respondent: Jeniffer Wamwirua Mariiku; Respondent: Peter Munene Gichira; Applicant: Rebeccah Wanjiru Kamau
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Embu
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application 206 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application After Suit Struck Out
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Court Process, Striking Out of Suit, Land Registration, Jurisdiction
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Abuse of Court Process Striking Out of Suit Land Registration Jurisdiction

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

Julius Njikari Kinyua

Applicant

Cyrus Kaigwa Kinyua

Applicant

Sospeter Mwangi Kinyua

Applicant

Paul Munyi Kiyua

Applicant

Wamarwa Kinyua Gichira

Applicant

Jeniffer Wamwirua Mariiku

Respondent

Peter Munene Gichira

Respondent

Rebeccah Wanjiru Kamau

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application After Suit Struck Out

  1. 1 Whether the court can issue orders when the main suit has been struck out for abuse of process.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant should seek remedy before the Land Registrar or by way of a fresh miscellaneous application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that since the main suit had already been struck out for being an abuse of the court process, there was no existing suit upon which the court could grant the orders sought by the applicant. The court further advised the applicant that the proper course of action would be to make an application before the Land Registrar under Section 73(1) & (2) of the Land Registration Act or to file a fresh miscellaneous application before the court. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is advised to seek remedy before the Land Registrar or by way of a fresh miscellaneous application.