[2006] KEHC 2029 (KLR)

[2006] KEHC 2029 (KLR)

The court found that the issues raised in the current application were substantially similar to those in previous applications and the plaint, some of which remain undetermined. The applicant had not been diligent in prosecuting the earlier applications or executing the consent orders and other orders made in his...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2006] KEHC 2029 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Michael Murage Njung'e; Respondent: Joseph Gathanwa Njung'e; Defendant: Julia Wagacii Njunge
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nyeri
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 184B of 1995
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Outcome
application struck out as abuse of process
Judges
GG Okwengu
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Appointment of Receiver, Accounting of Rents, Consent Orders, Abuse of Process
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Injunctions Appointment of Receiver Accounting of Rents Consent Orders Abuse of Process

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Murage Njung'e

Applicant

Joseph Gathanwa Njung'e

Respondent

Julia Wagacii Njunge

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Interlocutory Application

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an injunction restraining the respondent from managing, dealing with, or collecting rents from the suit property.
  2. 2 Whether a managing agent should be appointed to collect rent and render accounts pending determination of the suit.
  3. 3 Whether the application is an abuse of the court process given the existence of previous unexecuted orders and pending applications.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the issues raised in the current application were substantially similar to those in previous applications and the plaint, some of which remain undetermined. The applicant had not been diligent in prosecuting the earlier applications or executing the consent orders and other orders made in his favour. The court held that bringing a fresh application seeking similar reliefs while earlier applications and orders remain pending and unexecuted is an abuse of the court process. The consent order recorded on 26th July 1996, which compromised the suit, remains in force and has not been set aside. The applicant's failure to execute previous orders and his repeated applications...

Court Disposition

application struck out as abuse of process

Orders

  • The application dated 27th October 2005 is struck out as an abuse of the process of the court.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.