[2017] KEHC 4048 (KLR)
The court found that the application for a temporary injunction had already been conclusively determined on 26/4/2016, with the relevant orders granted and extracted. As such, the application was spent and incapable of being re-adjudicated. The court declined to revisit the application or the prayers sought,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2017] KEHC 4048 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Peter Chege; Plaintiff: Monicah Nyambura; Defendant: Adit Ogot Ambrose; Defendant: Amin Ogot; Defendant: Opunda Agot; Defendant: Demtilla Adet Ogot
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Busia
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 27 of 2016
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- application declared spent and incapable of re-adjudication
- Judges
- A Kaniaru
- Legal Topics
- Temporary Injunctions, Land Ownership Disputes, Contempt of Court, Interlocutory Orders
- 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
Peter Chege
Plaintiff
Monicah Nyambura
Plaintiff
Adit Ogot Ambrose
Defendant
Amin Ogot
Defendant
Opunda Agot
Defendant
Demtilla Adet Ogot
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from disposing, alienating, or transferring LR. No. BUKHAYO/MUNDIKA/2681 is still pending for determination.
- 2 Whether the application is spent and incapable of re-adjudication.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for a temporary injunction had already been conclusively determined on 26/4/2016, with the relevant orders granted and extracted. As such, the application was spent and incapable of being re-adjudicated. The court declined to revisit the application or the prayers sought, declaring the application spent. The ruling was therefore limited to clarifying the status of the application and confirming that no further adjudication on the same could be entertained.
Court Disposition
application declared spent and incapable of re-adjudication
Orders
- The application dated 30/3/2016 is declared spent and incapable of re-adjudication.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA IN BUSIA
LAND & ENVIRONMENTAL DIVISION
ELC NO. 27 OF 2016
PETER CHEGE ………....…………………..…………...........1ST PLAINTIFF
MONICAH NYAMBURA ……........………………….........…. 2ND PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
ADIT OGOT AMBROSE ……...…………..………........… 1ST DEFENDANT
AMIN OGOT …………….…….………………..…....…… 2ND DEFENDANT
OPUNDA AGOT ………………………………….........… 3RD DEFENDANT
DEMTILLA ADET OGOT ……...…………………..…..… 4TH DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
1. The application before me is a Notice of Motion dated 30/3/2016 and filed the same date. It is an application by the two Plaintiffs/Applicants - PETER CHEGE and MONICAH NYAMBURA- against the Defendants/Respondents - ADIT OGOT AMBROSE, AMIN OGOT, OPUNDA AGOT and DEMTILLA ADET OGOT.At this stage, what the Court is invited to consider are prayers 3 and 6, which are essentially about a restraining order and costs. Prayers 1 and 2 had come for consideration at the EXPARTE stage. They are not for consideration now.
2. The prayers for consideration are as follows:
Prayer 3: That this honourable Court do issue an order of temporary injunction against the Defendants/Respondents by themselves, their servants, workers, agents, 3rd parties restraining them from disposing off, alienating and/or transferring LR. No. BUKHAYO/MUNDIKA/2681 from the Plaintiffs ownership pending the hearing and determination of the main suit.
Prayer 6: That the costs of this application be provided for.
3. When the application first came to Court Exparte on 30/3/2016 the Court declined to grant prayer 2 and ordered that the application be served first. The application was then served and slated for hearing on 26/4/2016. On the date for hearing, the Defendant/Respondents, though served, failed to appear and had not responded to the application. The Court allowed the application and specifically granted prayers 3 and 6. These are the same prayers that are up for consideration now.
4. Infact prayer 3 as granted on 26/4/2016 and extracted as an order dated 3/5/2016, has been the subject of Contempt of Court proceedings herein. The ruling on contempt proceeding was delivered by this Court on 25/1/2017.
5. It is obvious then that it was a mistake to assume that the application herein should be heard. The application was concluded on 26/4/2016. This ruling therefore is not meant to revisit the application or the prayers sought. The best I can do is to declare the application spent and incapable of re-adjudication. And I so declare.
Dated, signed and delivered at Busia this 27th day of July, 2017.
A. K. KANIARU
JUDGE
In the Presence of:
1st Plaintiff: ………………………………..……………………
2nd Plaintiff: …………………………………………………….
1st Defendant ……..…………………………………………….
2nd Defendant ……..……………………………………………
3rd Defendant ……..……………………………………………
4th Defendant ……..……………………………………………
Counsel: …………………………………………………………