[2002] KEHC 634 (KLR)

[2002] KEHC 634 (KLR)

The court found that setting aside the ex parte judgment would serve no practical purpose because the suit property had already been transferred to a third party. Furthermore, if the respondent's claim of adverse possession is ultimately successful, the transfer to the third party would be of no effect, as the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] KEHC 634 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Moses Gichuho Kangethe; Defendant: John Njoronge Wamenju
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 6901 of 1991
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment, Adverse Possession, Eviction Proceedings, Transfer of Land Title
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Setting Aside Ex Parte Judgment Adverse Possession Eviction Proceedings Transfer of Land Title

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Moses Gichuho Kangethe

Plaintiff

John Njoronge Wamenju

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the ex parte judgment entered on 5th February, 1998 should be set aside given the subsequent transfer of the suit property to a third party.
  2. 2 Whether the defence and counterclaim based on adverse possession extinguished the applicant's title at the time of suit filing.
  3. 3 Whether the application to set aside serves any practical purpose after the transfer of the property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that setting aside the ex parte judgment would serve no practical purpose because the suit property had already been transferred to a third party. Furthermore, if the respondent's claim of adverse possession is ultimately successful, the transfer to the third party would be of no effect, as the applicant would have had no title to transfer. The respondent retains the option to amend the counterclaim to include the third party or to initiate fresh proceedings for adverse possession. The court therefore dismissed the application to set aside the order, noting that the respondent's counsel had failed to take decisive steps despite being instructed, but declined to award costs...

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to set aside the order is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs.