[2013] KEHC 3361 (KLR)

[2013] KEHC 3361 (KLR)

The court found that although the issues in both applications were directly and substantially the same, the applicant had sought different orders in the second application. Allowing both applications to proceed would cause injustice to the respondent and could render the applicant vexatious. The court held that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] KEHC 3361 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kenya Commercial Bank; Defendant: John Gathogo Ndegwa
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 77B of 1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Application dated 23/11/2000 marked as withdrawn; costs in the cause.
Judges
A Ombwayo
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Withdrawal of Applications, Limitation of Actions, Abuse of Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Injunctions Withdrawal of Applications Limitation of Actions Abuse of Process

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

Kenya Commercial Bank

Plaintiff

John Gathogo Ndegwa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Applications

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to withdraw the application dated 23/11/2000.
  2. 2 Whether filing a fresh application before withdrawing the previous one constitutes an abuse of court process.
  3. 3 Whether the issues in both applications are directly and substantially the same.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the issues in both applications were directly and substantially the same, the applicant had sought different orders in the second application. Allowing both applications to proceed would cause injustice to the respondent and could render the applicant vexatious. The court held that neither it nor the respondent could choose for the applicant which application to withdraw, but since the applicant opted to withdraw the application dated 23/11/2000, it was marked as withdrawn. Costs were ordered in the cause.

Court Disposition

Application dated 23/11/2000 marked as withdrawn; costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The application dated 23/11/2000 is marked as withdrawn.
  • Costs of the withdrawn application shall be in the cause.