Kariuki v Directline Insurance Co. Ltd & 4 others (Civil Case E002 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13251 (KLR) (16 July 2026) (Ruling)

Kariuki v Directline Insurance Co. Ltd & 4 others (Civil Case E002 of 2026) [2026] KEHC 13251 (KLR) (16 July 2026) (Ruling)

The court exercised its discretion to grant an adjournment because counsel for the Plaintiff needed time to recuperate, and then issued structured timelines for service, responses, skeleton submissions, and a compliance mention date for the Notice of Motion application to facilitate orderly hearing and case management.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2026] KEHC 13251 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Daniel Karanja Kariuki; Defendant: Directline Insurance Co. Ltd; 1st Interested Party: Henry Muriithi Muchuku; 2nd Interested Party: Joseph Mwaura Gitimu; 3rd Interested Party: Esther Murugi Irungu; 4th Interested Party: Hellen Kalekye Kyalo alias Hellen Kyalo
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case E002 of 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Adjournment and Directions on Notice of Motion Application
Outcome
Adjournment granted; directions issued on the pending application.
Judges
["DO Chepkwony"]
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Case Management, Inter Partes Hearing, Service of Application, Responses and Submissions, Mention for Compliance
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Adjournment Case Management Inter Partes Hearing Service of Application Responses and Submissions Mention for Compliance

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 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Karanja Kariuki

Plaintiff

Directline Insurance Co. Ltd

Defendant

Henry Muriithi Muchuku

1st Interested Party

Joseph Mwaura Gitimu

2nd Interested Party

Esther Murugi Irungu

3rd Interested Party

Hellen Kalekye Kyalo alias Hellen Kyalo

4th Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Adjournment and Directions on Notice of Motion Application

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant adjournment of the inter-partes hearing application dated 30th April, 2026.
  2. 2 What directions should govern the Notice of Motion application dated 14th May, 2026 filed by the 2nd and 3rd Interested Parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court exercised its discretion to grant an adjournment because counsel for the Plaintiff needed time to recuperate, and then issued structured timelines for service, responses, skeleton submissions, and a compliance mention date for the Notice of Motion application to facilitate orderly hearing and case management.

Court Disposition

Adjournment granted; directions issued on the pending application.

Orders

  • The adjournment of the inter-partes hearing was granted to allow counsel for the Plaintiff to recuperate.
  • The 2nd and 3rd Interested Parties shall serve the application dated 14th May, 2026 upon the other parties within three (3) days.