[2007] KEHC 3533 (KLR)

[2007] KEHC 3533 (KLR)

The court held that the substituted appellant's application was misconceived and incompetent because it sought final orders at an interlocutory stage, which is not permissible under civil procedure. The application attempted to review and set aside tribunal and appellate tribunal decisions and to order immediate...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2007] KEHC 3533 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Nancy Wambui Ngugi (substituted by Joseph Macharia Waithaka); Respondent: Elias Kamande Ndururi; Respondent: Veronica Njanja Ndururi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 749 of 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application to Review Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal Proceedings
Outcome
Application struck out as misconceived and incompetent; costs awarded to 1st respondent.
Legal Topics
Land Disputes Tribunal Awards, Review of Judgment, Execution of Judgment, Interlocutory Applications
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Land Disputes Tribunal Awards Review of Judgment Execution of Judgment Interlocutory Applications

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

Nancy Wambui Ngugi (substituted by Joseph Macharia Waithaka)

Appellant

Elias Kamande Ndururi

Respondent

Veronica Njanja Ndururi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Interlocutory Application to Review Tribunal and Appellate Tribunal Proceedings

  1. 1 Whether the High Court can review proceedings and judgments of the District Lands Tribunal and Provincial Lands Appeals Tribunal at the interlocutory stage.
  2. 2 Whether the orders sought by the substituted appellant are competent and properly before the court at this stage.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the substituted appellant's application was misconceived and incompetent because it sought final orders at an interlocutory stage, which is not permissible under civil procedure. The application attempted to review and set aside tribunal and appellate tribunal decisions and to order immediate transfer of land, which would effectively dispose of the entire appeal before it was properly heard. The proper course was for the appellant to prosecute the appeal in the usual way, not through an interlocutory application. Consequently, the application was struck out with costs to the 1st respondent.

Court Disposition

Application struck out as misconceived and incompetent; costs awarded to 1st respondent.

Orders

  • The application dated 9th July, 2007 is struck out with costs to the 1st respondent.
  • The substituted appellant is to prosecute the appeal in the usual way.