[2020] KEHC 5936 (KLR)
The court held that it had rendered a final judgment on 22nd January 2015, dismissing the plaintiff's case. As such, the High Court was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to entertain any further applications or documents seeking to reopen or revisit the matter, unless the order of dismissal was set aside by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2020] KEHC 5936 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Michael Mungai; Defendant: Housing Finance Co. (K) Ltd; Defendant: Kenya Building Society Ltd; Defendant: Taifa Auctioneers; Defendant: Christopher Avisa; Defendant: Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 1026 of 2001
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Post Judgment Application (dismissal of Further Filings)
- Outcome
- Plaintiff's post-judgment documents dismissed as incompetent; court declines jurisdiction to entertain further filings.
- Judges
- MM Kasango
- Legal Topics
- Finality of Judgments, Incompetent Applications, Court Jurisdiction Post Judgment
- 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
Michael Mungai
Plaintiff
Housing Finance Co. (K) Ltd
Defendant
Kenya Building Society Ltd
Defendant
Taifa Auctioneers
Defendant
Christopher Avisa
Defendant
Kenya Commercial Bank Ltd
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Post Judgment Application (dismissal of Further Filings)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the documents filed by the plaintiff after final judgment can be entertained by the court.
- 2 Whether the court has jurisdiction to reopen a case after final judgment has been delivered.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that it had rendered a final judgment on 22nd January 2015, dismissing the plaintiff's case. As such, the High Court was functus officio and lacked jurisdiction to entertain any further applications or documents seeking to reopen or revisit the matter, unless the order of dismissal was set aside by the Court of Appeal. The court further found that the documents filed by the plaintiff on 25th November 2019 did not qualify as a proper application, being informal and obscure, and thus were incompetent. Accordingly, the court dismissed the documents for want of jurisdiction and procedural propriety.
Court Disposition
Plaintiff's post-judgment documents dismissed as incompetent; court declines jurisdiction to entertain further filings.
Orders
- The documents filed by the plaintiff on 25th November 2019 are dismissed as incompetent.
- No further action will be taken by this court unless the order of dismissal is set aside by the Court of Appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI COMMERCIAL & TAX DIVISION
CIVIL SUIT NO. 1026 OF 2001
MICHAEL MUNGAI ............................................................. PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
HOUSING FINANCE CO. (K) LTD............................1ST DEFENDANT
KENYA BUILDING SOCIETY LTD..........................2ND DEFENDANT
TAIFA AUCTIONEERS.................,..............................3RD DEFENDANT
CHRISTOPHER AVISA................................................4TH DEFENDANT
KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.......................5TH DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
1. On 22nd January 2015 Justice J. Kamau delivered a very detailed judgment on this matter. It is clear from that judgment that the plaintiff, had prior to that final hearing of his case, filed numerous application. It was with a view to finally determining the matter that Justice J. Kamau persuaded the plaintiff to proceed with the full hearing which resulted in the learned judge delivering the judgment alluded to above.
2. The plaintiff, even after the delivery of that judgment persisted in communicating with the court requesting for a mention date. On 20th February 2019 I declined to sanction the fixing of mention date because it was not clear the purpose for which the plaintiff sought a mention. I directed the plaintiff to move the court by application.
3. It is important to note that the plaintiff is unrepresented and previously in this matter several judges have been unable to comprehend what orders the plaintiff seeks. This is the dilemma I found myself in when the plaintiff, in heeding to my direction filed a document, which I am hard pressed to refer to it as an application, because it is not. It is addressed as though it is a letter but very obscure and I am left not knowing what the plaintiff seeks from this court.
4. In sum I wish to say that the documents filed by the plaintiff, which cannot qualify to be called an application, is incompetent and cannot be entertained by this court. Perhaps what I would wish the plaintiff to understand is that this court rendered its final judgment on 22nd January 2015, when the plaintiff’s case was dismissed. That being so other than the court of appeal setting aside that order of dismissal this court has no power to re-open the case.
5. It is for that reason I decline to entertain the documents filed on 25th November 2019. It is incompetent and is dismissed.
DATED, SIGNED and DELIVERED at NAIROBI this4thday of MAY,2020.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE
ORDER
In view of the measures restricting court operations due to the COVID-19 pandemic and in light of the Gazette Notice No 3137 of 17th April 2020 and further parties having been notified of the virtual delivery of this decision, this decision is hereby virtually delivered this 4th day of May, 2020.
MARY KASANGO
JUDGE