[2008] KEHC 1904 (KLR)
The court found that the applicants had not provided any valid or satisfactory reason to justify altering the previous orders requiring them to release certain items to the respondents. The court emphasized that compliance with its orders is mandatory unless successfully challenged, and that the applicants were...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2008] KEHC 1904 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Nanga Kihoto/Naivasha Ltd; Plaintiff: Pharis Mburu Ngugi; Plaintiff: Benjamin N. Kinuthia; Plaintiff: Kamau Kariuki; Plaintiff: Daniel Mwangi Kangethe; Plaintiff: Kuria Gicheru; Plaintiff: Njoroge Kinyanjui; Plaintiff: Harun Kimani; Defendant: Gabriel Kaburu Kagunya; Defendant: David Waweru Nganga; Defendant: Joseph Kara; Defendant: Kahinga Gakere; Defendant: James Mwangi Karanja; Defendant: Elijah Mwenda; Defendant: Francis Kiguru Mwaura
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nakuru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Suit 250 of 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion Dated 28th July 2008
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondents
- Judges
- CN Mugo
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Applications, Compliance With Court Orders, Costs Awards
- 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
Nanga Kihoto/Naivasha Ltd
Plaintiff
Pharis Mburu Ngugi
Plaintiff
Benjamin N. Kinuthia
Plaintiff
Kamau Kariuki
Plaintiff
Daniel Mwangi Kangethe
Plaintiff
Kuria Gicheru
Plaintiff
Njoroge Kinyanjui
Plaintiff
Harun Kimani
Plaintiff
Gabriel Kaburu Kagunya
Defendant
David Waweru Nganga
Defendant
Joseph Kara
Defendant
Kahinga Gakere
Defendant
James Mwangi Karanja
Defendant
Elijah Mwenda
Defendant
Francis Kiguru Mwaura
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Ruling on Notice of Motion Dated 28th July 2008
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should alter its previous orders regarding the release of items to the respondents.
- 2 Whether the applicants have provided sufficient grounds to justify non-compliance with the court's previous orders.
- 3 Whether leave should be granted to file further papers in the matter.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants had not provided any valid or satisfactory reason to justify altering the previous orders requiring them to release certain items to the respondents. The court emphasized that compliance with its orders is mandatory unless successfully challenged, and that the applicants were unnecessarily prolonging the matter by seeking leave to file further papers. Consequently, the court dismissed the application and ordered the applicants to comply with the previous orders forthwith, with costs awarded to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondents
Orders
- Applicants to comply forthwith with previous orders to release items to the respondents.
- Application dated 28th July 2008 is dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
24 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU
Civil Suit 250 of 2007
NANGA KIHOTO/NAIVASHA LTD ……………………..1ST PLAINTIFF
PHARIS MBURU NGUGI…………………………………2ND PLAINTIFF
BENJAMIN N. KINUTHIA………………………………...3RD PLAINTIFF
KAMAU KARIUKI…………………………………………4TH PLAINTIFF
DANIEL MWANGI KANGETHE………………………….5TH PLAINTIFF
KURIA GICHERU………………………………….............6TH PLAINTIFF
NJOROGE KINYANJUI……………………………………7TH PLAINTIFF
HARUN KIMANI…......……………………………………..8TH PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
GABRIEL KABURU KAGUNYA………………………1ST DEFENDANT
DAVID WAWERU NGANGA…………………..............2ND DEFENDANT
JOSEPH KARA…………………………………………..3RD DEFENDANT
KAHINGA GAKERE…….…………………………….....4TH DEFENDANT
JAMES MWANGI KARANJA……….…………………..5TH DEFENDANT
ELIJAH MWENDA………………….……………………6TH DEFENDANT
FRANCIS KIGURU MWAURA……….………………...7TH DEFENDANT
RULING & ORDER
I have heard counsel for both the applicant and the Respondent in the Notice of Motion dated 28th July 2008. Not being satisfied, prima facie, why the Court should go against its previous orders I refuse to alter the same. There is no valid reason why the Applicants should continue holding onto the items ordered to be released to the Respondents. They should comply with the order forthwith. Should the applicants find that they have a genuine claim against the Respondents there is nothing to prevent them from moving the court on their own motion. I refuse to grant leave to file any further papers being of the view that the matter is being protracted unnecessarily.
Considering the facts of the case and on the strength of my Ruling of 24th July 2008 and the orders made therein, which have not been satisfactorily challenged, I dismiss the application with costs to the Respondents.
Dated at Nakuru this 6th day of August 2008
M. G. MUGO
JUDGE