[2011] KEHC 249 (KLR)

[2011] KEHC 249 (KLR)

The court found that the suit had already been concluded by a consent order, and a previous application for similar orders had been dismissed on the same basis. No new evidence or sufficient grounds were presented to justify a departure from the earlier ruling. The delay in bringing the application was inordinate,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] KEHC 249 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Margaret Nyokabi Kahihu; Plaintiff: John Kamuyu Kahihu; Defendant: Samuel Mukuha Njuki
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 1476 of 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Review and Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff
Judges
A Mbogholi-Msagha
Legal Topics
Review of Orders, Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem, Consent Judgment, Delay in Application
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Review of Orders Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem Consent Judgment Delay in Application

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Margaret Nyokabi Kahihu

Plaintiff

John Kamuyu Kahihu

Plaintiff

Samuel Mukuha Njuki

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Review and Appointment of Guardian Ad Litem

  1. 1 Whether the court should review the order issued by Justice Osiemo and appoint a guardian ad litem for the defendant at this stage.
  2. 2 Whether the application for review is tenable given the suit was already concluded by consent order.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in bringing the application renders it incompetent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the suit had already been concluded by a consent order, and a previous application for similar orders had been dismissed on the same basis. No new evidence or sufficient grounds were presented to justify a departure from the earlier ruling. The delay in bringing the application was inordinate, and the applicant failed to meet the requirements for review under Order 45 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The appointment of a guardian ad litem at this stage would serve no purpose, as the matter was already finalized. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the plaintiff

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs to the plaintiff.