[2012] KEHC 693 (KLR)
The court held that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to applications that have been dismissed for non-attendance rather than on their merits. The earlier application dated 10th April 2011 was dismissed because the plaintiff's counsel failed to attend court, and not after a substantive determination of the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 693 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mulgold Limited; Defendant: Maimuna Abdallahi Mohamed; Defendant: Abubakar Salim Mohamed
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Mombasa
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 555 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
- Outcome
- preliminary objection dismissed
- Judges
- F Tuiyott
- Legal Topics
- Res Judicata, Preliminary Objection, Dismissal for Non Attendance
- 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
Mulgold Limited
Plaintiff
Maimuna Abdallahi Mohamed
Defendant
Abubakar Salim Mohamed
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Legal Issues
- 1 Does the doctrine of res judicata apply to an application dismissed for non-attendance rather than on its merits?
- 2 Is the plaintiff's application of 26th April 2012 barred by res judicata due to the earlier dismissal of a similar application?
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the doctrine of res judicata does not apply to applications that have been dismissed for non-attendance rather than on their merits. The earlier application dated 10th April 2011 was dismissed because the plaintiff's counsel failed to attend court, and not after a substantive determination of the issues raised. Therefore, the subsequent application of 26th April 2012 is not barred by res judicata. The preliminary objection raised by the defendants was accordingly disallowed.
Court Disposition
preliminary objection dismissed
Orders
- The preliminary objection dated 26th April 2012 is disallowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
High Court at Mombasa
Civil Case 555 of 2011 [if !mso]> <style> v:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);} </style> <![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
800x600
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><xml>
Normal 0
false false false
EN-GB X-NONE X-NONE
MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
</xml><![endif][if gte mso 9]><![endif][if !mso]> <style> st1:*{behavior:url(#ieooui) } </style> <![endif][if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-style-parent:""; font-size:10. 0pt;"Times New Roman","serif";} </style> <![endif]
MULGOLD LIMITED ……………………………………..... PLAINTIFF
V E R S U S
MAIMUNA ABDALLAHI MOHAMED ….…......…… 1ST DEFENDANT
ABUBAKAR SALIM MOHAMED …….....………… 2ND DEFENDANT
RULING
1)The Defendants have raised a Preliminary Objection to the Plaintiffs’ application of 26th April 2012 on the ground that the application is Res Judicata that dated 10th April 2011. The latter application was dismissed by Court on 27th October 2011 when the Applicant failed to attend Court to prosecute it.
2)These are my short observations of the Preliminary Objection.
3)The Doctrine of Res Judicata applies to applications just as it does to suits (see Nrb HCC 2222 of 1999 Afab Establishments Ltd & Others –Vs- Najmudin Jiwaji Ganijee & 2 Others where Alnashir Visram, J (as he then was) quoted the following passage from The Court of Appeal Decision in Uhuru Highway Development Ltd –Vs- Central Bank of Kenya & Others Civil Appeal No. 36 of 1996-
“There is not one case cited to show that an application in a suit once decided by Courts of competent jurisdiction can be filed once again for rehearing. This shows only one intention on the part of the legislature …. That is to say, there must be an end to applications of similar nature: that is to say further, wider principles of res judicata apply to applications within the suit.”
The principles on the doctrine applicable to suits would apply to applications.
4)Now, I must straightaway say that the plea cannot be successfully taken in the instance before Court because the dismissal of the application of the earlier application of 10th April 2011 was for non-attendance. The application was not dismissed on merits. This is the order of dismissal-
“As the Plaintiff’s Counsel has failed to attend Court for the hearing of its application dated 10th October 2011, I dismiss the said application and vacate the Orders of interim injunction made by the Court on the 10th October 2011. ”
Res Judicata does not apply where the earlier application has not been dismissed on merit.
5)For that reason I disallow the Preliminary Objection dated 26th April 2012.
Dated and delivered at Mombasa this 18th day of October, 2012.
F. TUIYOTT
JUDGE
Dated and delivered in open court in the presence of:-
No appearance for the Plaintiff
Kabebe for Gikandi for the Defendants
Court clerk - Moriasi
F. TUIYOTT
JUDGE