[2020] KEHC 1825 (KLR)
The court found that the preliminary objection raised by the respondent lacked merit because the previous suit, Matrimonial Cause No.9 of 2015, had been withdrawn wholly and was not determined on its merits. Therefore, the doctrine of res judicata did not apply. The respondent failed to file any substantive response...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 1825 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: LWM; Respondent: HMT
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Matrimonial Cause 11 of 2020
- Procedural Posture
- Matrimonial Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- Preliminary objection dismissed; application allowed as prayed in prayers 4 and 5.
- Judges
- RB Ngetich
- Legal Topics
- Matrimonial Property, Division of Property, Res Judicata, Interlocutory Orders
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
LWM
Applicant
HMT
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Cause / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the preliminary objection on grounds of res judicata is merited in light of the withdrawal of Matrimonial Cause No.9 of 2015.
- 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interlocutory orders for reopening the hardware business and return of goods pending hearing and determination of the main suit.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the preliminary objection raised by the respondent lacked merit because the previous suit, Matrimonial Cause No.9 of 2015, had been withdrawn wholly and was not determined on its merits. Therefore, the doctrine of res judicata did not apply. The respondent failed to file any substantive response to the application or to demonstrate why the applicant's hardware business should remain closed or why goods removed should not be returned. In the absence of opposition and in light of the applicant's evidence, the court was satisfied that the applicant was entitled to the interlocutory orders sought, including reopening the business, return of goods, and provision of police...
Court Disposition
Preliminary objection dismissed; application allowed as prayed in prayers 4 and 5.
Orders
- Preliminary objection dated 1st October 2020 is dismissed.
- The respondent is compelled to unlock the doors of the applicant’s hardware business on plot no.4/312.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
38 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAKURU
MATRIMONIAL CAUSE NO.11 OF 2020
IN THE MATTER OF SECTIONS 6 & 17 OF THE MATRIMONIAL 2013
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION FOR DIVISION OF MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY
BETWEEN
LWM............APPLICANT
-VERSUS-
HMT.........RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This is a ruling on application dated 16th September 2020. The applicant seeks opening of a shop closed pending hearing and determination of other prayers in the application prayer 4 of the application.
2. When the matter came up for directions on the application on 1st October 2020, counsel for the applicant informed the Court that she had served the respondent and notice of appointment of Advocate had been filed but no response to the application had been filed.
3. I granted Mr. Bosire for the respondent 3 days to file response to the application. On 7th October 2020 when the matter came up for hearing of the application, counsel for the respondent failed to attend Court. The respondent had filed preliminary objection indicating that there was another suit pending before another Court. Counsel for the application informed the Court that they had filed an affidavit to show that there is no pending suit.
4. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the other suit Matrimonial Cause No.9 of 2015 was withdrawn on 31st October 2018 and the supplementary affidavit has exhibited the Court Order; she submitted that being the only issue raised in the preliminary objection, the application is not opposed and that they should have opposed the application through a replying affidavit; that the suit herein is not res judicata as it was not decided on merit but was withdrawn and withdrawal does not bar the plaintiff from bringing a fresh suit. She urged the Court to find that the preliminary objection has no basis and proceed to dismiss it and allow prayer 4 and 5 of the application as the application is not opposed. She prayed for police assistance on ground that there has been violence.
ANALYSIS AND DETERMINATION
5. As earlier stated above the respondent filed notice of appointment of advocate and preliminary objection dated 1st October 2020. I have perused the supplementary affidavit. The applicant averred that she instituted Matrimonial Cause No.9 of 2015 but by order of 31st March 2018 she withdrew the suit wholly against the defendant with no orders as to costs. She attached the said Court Order to the supplementary affidavit.
6. She averred that the issues raised in the said suit were not finally determined in the manner contemplated under section 7 of the civil procedure Act and this is not therefore res judicata.
7. I have perused the Court Order attached to the preliminary objection and do confirm that Matrimonial Cause No 9 of 2015 was withdrawn by order issued on 7th October 2020.
8. I agree with counsel that a party cannot be barred from filing another suit after withdrawn before issues raised are determined on merit. A Suit file can only be res judicata if the previous one filed was heard and determined on merit.
9. From the foregoing, I see no merit in the preliminary objection filed and do dismiss it accordingly.
10. In respect to prayers 4 and 5 of the application, no response has been filed by the respondent to challenge issuance of prayers sought by the applicant. The respondent has failed to demonstrate why the plaintiffs Hardware on Plot No.4/312 should not be opened and why mandatory order should not be issued compelling him/respondent to return any goods and/or stock removed from the premises without the applicant’s consent.
11. From the foregoing, I am inclined to allow prayer 4 and 5 of the application.
12. FINAL ORDERS
1. Preliminary objection dated 1st October 2020 is hereby dismissed.
2. The respondent is hereby compelled to unlock the doors of the plaintiff’s hardware business established on plot no.4/312
3. The respondent is hereby compelled to return any goods and or stock removed from the applicant’s hardware business without the consent of the plaintiff/applicant.
4. Area OCS to provide Security to the applicant in the event of resistance.
5. Costs of the application to the applicant.
Ruling dated, signed and delivered via zoom at NakuruThis 5th day of November, 2020
……………………
RACHEL NGETICH
JUDGE
In the presence of:
Jeniffer - Court Assistant
Mrs Mukira Counsel for Applicant
No appearance for the Respondent