[2018] KEELC 4751 (KLR)

[2018] KEELC 4751 (KLR)

The court found that the plaintiff had previously filed a similar application for inhibition and temporary injunction, which was dismissed for want of prosecution due to his non-attendance on the hearing date he had taken. The court held that bringing a fresh application seeking the same orders, without first...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEELC 4751 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Nathan Mpekethu Laichena; Defendant: Peter Kobia Mbabu; Defendant: Mark Maore; Defendant: The Hon. Attorney General (on behalf of the District Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer, Igembe District)
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 286 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Inhibition and Temporary Injunction
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to 1st respondent
Legal Topics
Land Adjudication, Inhibition Orders, Temporary Injunctions
Source Language
en
Land and Property Land Adjudication Inhibition Orders Temporary Injunctions

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nathan Mpekethu Laichena

Plaintiff

Peter Kobia Mbabu

Defendant

Mark Maore

Defendant

The Hon. Attorney General (on behalf of the District Land Adjudication & Settlement Officer, Igembe District)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Inhibition and Temporary Injunction

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to orders of inhibition and temporary injunction over Parcels No. 1599, 8641, 8642 in Akirangondu 'A' Adjudication Section.
  2. 2 Whether the current application is res judicata or an abuse of court process following the dismissal of a similar earlier application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff had previously filed a similar application for inhibition and temporary injunction, which was dismissed for want of prosecution due to his non-attendance on the hearing date he had taken. The court held that bringing a fresh application seeking the same orders, without first seeking to set aside the dismissal or explaining the absence, constitutes an abuse of the court process. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to 1st respondent

Orders

  • The application dated 01:08:17 is dismissed with costs to the 1st respondent.