[2010] KEHC 1210 (KLR)

[2010] KEHC 1210 (KLR)

The court found that the order of 24th April, 2002, which the applicants sought to review or implement, had already been set aside by a valid court order on 17th July, 2003. As such, there was no existing order on record capable of being reviewed or implemented. The court emphasized the principle that litigation...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] KEHC 1210 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Newton Kabui Muruhi; Plaintiff: Joseph Ngugi Muruhi; Plaintiff: Kinyanjui Muruhi; Plaintiff: Gad Githinji Muruhi; Defendant: Leah Wambui Karenge; Defendant: Mburu Kinyanjui Waweru
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case 1792 of 1975
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Review And/or Implementation of Prior Orders
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the defendants; no further applications to be entertained without leave of court
Judges
A Mbogholi-Msagha
Legal Topics
Review of Court Orders, Arbitration Awards, Finality of Litigation, Land Title Identification
Source Language
en
Land and Property Civil Procedure Review of Court Orders Arbitration Awards Finality of Litigation Land Title Identification

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Newton Kabui Muruhi

Plaintiff

Joseph Ngugi Muruhi

Plaintiff

Kinyanjui Muruhi

Plaintiff

Gad Githinji Muruhi

Plaintiff

Leah Wambui Karenge

Defendant

Mburu Kinyanjui Waweru

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion for Review And/or Implementation of Prior Orders

  1. 1 Whether there exists a court order dated 24th April, 2002 capable of being reviewed or implemented.
  2. 2 Whether the application for review or implementation is competent in light of the prior setting aside of the relevant order.
  3. 3 Whether further applications in this suit should be entertained without leave of court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the order of 24th April, 2002, which the applicants sought to review or implement, had already been set aside by a valid court order on 17th July, 2003. As such, there was no existing order on record capable of being reviewed or implemented. The court emphasized the principle that litigation must come to an end and that parties should not be allowed to perpetuate disputes through repeated applications on matters already conclusively determined. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs to the defendants, and the court directed that no further applications would be entertained in this suit without leave of the court.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the defendants; no further applications to be entertained without leave of court

Orders

  • The application dated 29th April, 2009 is dismissed with costs to the defendants.
  • No further applications shall be entertained in this suit without the leave of the court.