[2020] KEELC 858 (KLR)
The court found that the dismissal of the 2nd defendant’s application dated 16th January 2018 was made in error because only one limb of the application had been addressed in the earlier ruling, leaving the issue of res judicata unresolved. The court exercised its inherent power to correct the error by vacating the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEELC 858 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mary Wanjiru Mwaniki; Plaintiff: Michel Ndungu Mwaniki; Defendant: Peter Anjeyo Vohya; Defendant: Cresters Kuloba Wambu; Interested Party: Paul Kamau Mwangi
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Bungoma
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 24 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property / Ruling on Application to Vacate Dismissal and Reinstate Application
- Outcome
- Application to vacate dismissal order allowed; application reinstated for hearing on res judicata.
- Legal Topics
- Res Judicata, Land Registration Act Section 18, Vacation of Orders, Reinstatement of Application
- 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
Mary Wanjiru Mwaniki
Plaintiff
Michel Ndungu Mwaniki
Plaintiff
Peter Anjeyo Vohya
Defendant
Cresters Kuloba Wambu
Defendant
Paul Kamau Mwangi
Interested Party
Procedural Posture
Land and Property / Ruling on Application to Vacate Dismissal and Reinstate Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the dismissal of the 2nd defendant's application dated 16th January 2018 was made in error and should be vacated.
- 2 Whether the application dated 16th January 2018 should be reinstated for hearing on the issue of res judicata.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the dismissal of the 2nd defendant’s application dated 16th January 2018 was made in error because only one limb of the application had been addressed in the earlier ruling, leaving the issue of res judicata unresolved. The court exercised its inherent power to correct the error by vacating the dismissal order and reinstating the application for hearing solely on the issue of res judicata. The court directed that the matter be set down for further directions and that all relevant parties be served accordingly.
Court Disposition
Application to vacate dismissal order allowed; application reinstated for hearing on res judicata.
Orders
- The orders issued on 20th February 2020 dismissing the 2nd defendant’s application dated 16th January 2018 are vacated.
- The 2nd defendant’s application dated 16th January 2018 is reinstated for hearing only on the issue of res judicata.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
28 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT BUNGOMA
ELC CASE NO. 24 OF 2012
MARY WANJIRU MWANIKI.................................................1ST PLAINTIFF
MICHEL NDUNGU MWANIKI.............................................2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
PETER ANJEYO VOHYA...................................................1ST DEFENDANT
CRESTERS KULOBA WAMBU........................................2ND DEFENDANT
AND
PAUL KAMAU MWANGI...........................................INTERESTED PARTY
R U L I N G
In my ruling dated 22nd November 2018, I dealt with two applications. The first one was the Interested Party’s application dated 11th September 2017 while the second one was the 2nd defendant’s application dated 16th January 2018.
In the said ruling, I allowed the Interested Party’s application dated 11th September 2017 but made the following order in paragraph 5 of the same: -
“Meanwhile, the 2nd defendant is at liberty to take a date to prosecute his application dated 16th January 2018. ”
When the matter came up before me on 20th February 2020, I indicated that the application dated 16th January 2018 had infact already been dealt with in the earlier ruling delivered on 22nd November 2018. I then proceeded suo motto to dismiss it.
MR BW’ONCHIRI has now drawn my attention to the fact that the application dated 16th January 2018 is still pending. That position is shared both by MR OBWATINYA for the 1st defendant assisted by MR WAGONDA. Both MR ONYANDO for the plaintiff and MR KUNDU for the Interested Party were not present in Court.
I have perused my ruling dated 22nd November 2020, the Judgment of OMOLLO J delivered on 4th November 2014 and my orders of 20th February 2020. It is correct that the orders of 20th February 2020 dismissing the application dated 16th January 2018 were made in error. The application dated 16th January 2018 had two limbs i.e. –
1. That this Court find that this suit is res – judicata BUNGOMA HIGH COURT CIVIL APPEAL No 43 of 2006 and should be struck out.
2. That this suit contravenes the provisions of Section 18 of the Land Registration Act and should therefore be struck out.
Having perused my ruling dated 22nd November 2018, it has become clear to me that whereas I dealt with the second limb of the 2nd defendant’s application dated 16th January 2018, I did not make any decision on the first limb of that application. That was an error which this Court must therefore correct by vacating the orders issued suo motto on 20th February 2020.
Accordingly, I make the following orders: -
1. The orders issued on 20th February 2020 dismissing the 2nd defendant’s application dated 16th January 2020 are vacated.
2. The 2nd defendant’s application dated 16th January 2020 is hereby reinstated to hearing but only in respect to the first limb raising the issue of res – judicata.
3. The parties to appear on 29th October 2020 for further directions on that application.
4. MR BW’ONCHIRI to serve both MR ONYANDO for the plaintiff and MR KUNDU for the Interested Party.
Boaz N. Olao.
J U D G E
29th October 2020.