[2023] KEHC 21459 (KLR)

[2023] KEHC 21459 (KLR)

The court found that the application for stay and transfer was without merit. The issues raised by the applicants should have been brought before the court's ruling of December 9, 2022, which reopened the case for hearing on the counterclaim. The court emphasized that the matter has been pending since 2011 and that...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEHC 21459 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Charles Kerich; Plaintiff: Kelekye Mumo; Defendant: Ngoge Peter Odiwuor t/a O.P. Ngoge & Assoicates Advocates; Defendant: Eric Orina
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 390 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Stay and Transfer
Outcome
application dismissed
Judges
AN Ongeri
Legal Topics
Stay of Proceedings, Transfer of Suit, Case Management, Delay of Justice
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Stay of Proceedings Transfer of Suit Case Management Delay of Justice

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

Charles Kerich

Plaintiff

Kelekye Mumo

Plaintiff

Ngoge Peter Odiwuor t/a O.P. Ngoge & Assoicates Advocates

Defendant

Eric Orina

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application for Stay and Transfer

  1. 1 Whether the suit should be stayed pending the determination of Petition No. 125 of 2019.
  2. 2 Whether the suit should be transferred to the Constitutional and Human Rights Division for consolidation with Petition No. 125 of 2019.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application for stay and transfer was without merit. The issues raised by the applicants should have been brought before the court's ruling of December 9, 2022, which reopened the case for hearing on the counterclaim. The court emphasized that the matter has been pending since 2011 and that granting the orders sought would only serve to further delay the suit, contrary to the constitutional imperative that justice should not be delayed. The court also held that it was properly seized of jurisdiction and saw no reason to transfer the matter to another division. Accordingly, the application was dismissed and the hearing was directed to proceed as previously scheduled.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application dated May 8, 2023 is dismissed.
  • Costs of the application to abide the outcome of the case.