[2020] KEELC 858 (KLR)

[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
Land and Property Civil Procedure Res Judicata Land Registration Act Section 18 Vacation of Orders Reinstatement of 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

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

  1. 1 Whether the dismissal of the 2nd defendant's application dated 16th January 2018 was made in error and should be vacated.
  2. 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.