[2022] KEHC 16958 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant failed to disclose the exact recent date of the alleged denial of access to the matrimonial home, with the supporting affidavit only referencing events from 2020. As a result, the court determined that there was no demonstrated urgency to justify certifying the application as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2022] KEHC 16958 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Josephine Atieno Omenda; Defendant: Peter Otieno Peter
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Siaya
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 4 of 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Injunctive Orders and Certification of Urgency
- Outcome
- Application for certification as urgent declined; directions for inter partes hearing issued.
- Judges
- RE Aburili
- Legal Topics
- Matrimonial Property Dispute, Injunctive Relief, Certification of Urgency
- 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
Josephine Atieno Omenda
Plaintiff
Peter Otieno Peter
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Application for Injunctive Orders and Certification of Urgency
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for injunctive orders should be certified as urgent.
- 2 Whether the applicant has disclosed sufficient urgency to warrant ex parte orders during the court recess.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant failed to disclose the exact recent date of the alleged denial of access to the matrimonial home, with the supporting affidavit only referencing events from 2020. As a result, the court determined that there was no demonstrated urgency to justify certifying the application as urgent or granting ex parte injunctive relief during the recess. The court therefore declined to certify the matter as urgent and directed that the respondent be served for inter partes directions before the duty judge.
Court Disposition
Application for certification as urgent declined; directions for inter partes hearing issued.
Orders
- Leave granted for the application to be heard during the recess.
- Application not certified as urgent.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
Omenda v Peter (Civil Case 4 of 2022) [2022] KEHC 16958 (KLR) (29 December 2022) (Ruling)
Neutral citation: [2022] KEHC 16958 (KLR)
Republic of Kenya
In the High Court at Siaya
Civil Case 4 of 2022
RE Aburili, J
December 29, 2022
(Originating from Kisumu High Court Originating Summons No. E002 of 2022)
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 2 AND 17 OF MATRIMONIAL PROPERTY, 2013 AND IN THE MATTER OF THE CONSTITUTION, CHAPTER 4, ARTICLE 45(3) AND IN THE MATTER OF ORDER 40 RULE 1, 2 & 3 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES, 2010
Between
Josephine Atieno Omenda
Plaintiff
and
Peter Otieno Peter
Defendant
Ruling
1. I have considered the Chamber summons dated application dated December 29, 2022 under Certificate of urgency. I find that the application deserves to be considered during the recess.
2. I grant leave to the application to be heard during the recess.
3. On the main Notice of Motion for injunctive orders, I observe that the applicant has not disclosed the exact recent date when she was allegedly denied access to her matrimonial home as the affidavit in support claims that the Respondent moved out of the home in 2020 during covid-19 pandemic and that he sacked the employees and changed security guards’ firms.
4. I find no urgency involved. I decline to certify the matter as urgent. I direct the applicant to serve the Respondent for interpartes directions before the recess duty Judge on January 5, 2023.
5. I so direct
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED AT SIAYA THIS 29TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022R.E. ABURILIJUDGE