[2016] KEHC 8087 (KLR)
The court found that the respondent's application for review was filed within a reasonable time after the orders were made and that it would not be unreasonable to require the parties to argue the application for review on its merits before addressing compliance with the previous orders. The preliminary objection...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 8087 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: M D M B M; Respondent: R S S; Respondent: F M
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Divorce Cause 27 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Divorce Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection overruled
- Judges
- DN Musyoka
- Legal Topics
- Divorce Proceedings, Preliminary Objection, Review of 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
M D M B M
Applicant
R S S
Respondent
F M
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Divorce Petition / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the preliminary objection to the respondent's application for review of orders is merited.
- 2 Whether the application for review was filed after unreasonable delay.
- 3 Whether the issue of compliance with previous orders should await determination of the review application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondent's application for review was filed within a reasonable time after the orders were made and that it would not be unreasonable to require the parties to argue the application for review on its merits before addressing compliance with the previous orders. The preliminary objection was therefore overruled, allowing the review application to proceed.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection overruled
Orders
- The preliminary objection is overruled.
- The application dated 22nd January 2015 shall be heard on its merits.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
18 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
FAMILY DIVISION
DIVORCE NO. 27 OF 2013
M D M B M……………….………………….…….PETITIONER
VERSUS
R S S …………………………………………..RESPONDENT
F M…………………………………………CO-RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This ruling is in respect of a Notice of Preliminary Objection dated 10th February 2015, filed herein by the petitioner.
2. The objection arises from the application filed herein by the respondent dated 22nd January 2015. The said application seeks review of orders made on 28th November 2014.
3. I have perused through the application. It is noteworthy that the review is being sought roughly one and half months after the delivery of the ruling which gave rise to the orders sought to be reviewed. It cannot be said that the application was brought after unreasonable delay. .
4. The applicant has exercised the option to have the orders reviewed, and prays for stay of the orders pending the review.
5. I do not think it would be unreasonable to require the parties to argue the application dated 22nd January 2015 first so that it can be determined on its merits. The issue of compliance with the orders made on 28th November 2014 should be dealt with after determination of the application dated 22nd January 2015.
6. I will overrule the objection on those terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016.
W. MUSYOKA
JUDGE