[2005] KEHC 2957 (KLR)
The court found that the application for leave to file an appeal out of time was res judicata, as a similar application had already been determined and the applicant failed to comply with the conditions set by the previous order. The lapse of the previous order and the identical nature of the current application...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2005] KEHC 2957 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Reuben Mburu Gathigi; Respondent: Agricultural Finance Corporation
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 19 of 1998
- Procedural Posture
- Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to the respondent
- Legal Topics
- Res Judicata, Leave to Appeal Out of Time, Affidavit Requirements
- 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
Reuben Mburu Gathigi
Applicant
Agricultural Finance Corporation
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Application for Leave to Appeal Out of Time
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for leave to file an appeal out of time is res judicata.
- 2 Whether the supporting affidavit violates Sections 34 and 35 of the Advocates Act and should be struck out.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application for leave to file an appeal out of time was res judicata, as a similar application had already been determined and the applicant failed to comply with the conditions set by the previous order. The lapse of the previous order and the identical nature of the current application rendered it barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Additionally, the supporting affidavit was struck out for failing to comply with Sections 34 and 35 of the Advocates Act, as it did not identify the person or advocate who drew it. These grounds were sufficient for the court to dismiss the application with costs to the respondent.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Orders
- The application dated 31st May, 2004 is dismissed with costs to the respondent.
- The supporting affidavit is struck out for non-compliance with Sections 34 and 35 of the Advocates Act.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
11 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO 19 OF 1998
REUBEN MBURU GATHIGI ……………………………… PLAINTIFF VERSUS AGRICULTURAL FINANCE CORPORATION ……… DEFENDANTRULING
Counsel for the Respondent, Mrs Mbabu, raised a preliminary objection to the application dated 31st May, 2004 for leave to file an appeal out of time, on the grounds that it was res judicata, having been heard and determined on 24th September, 2001.
The applicant admits in the grounds on the face of the application that a similar application was indeed made and determined by the Court on 24th September, 2001 when the Court allowed the application on condition that the appeal was filed within 7 days of the Court’s order. That was, of course, not done and the order lapsed. The present application, made some three years after the previous one, is exactly the same. I agree with Mrs Mbabu that the same is res judicata, and on that ground alone it is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Mrs Mbabu also argued that the affidavit in support of the application does not identify the person or advocate who drew the same, and accordingly it violated Sections 34 and 35 of the Advocates Act, and ought to be struck out. I agree with that argument based on the reasoning outlined in the case of Johann Distelberger vs Joshua Muindi (HCCC No 1587 of 2003 – Nairobi) and hereby strike the same out.
Accordingly, the application dated 31st May, 2004 is dismissed with costs to the Respondent.
Dated and delivered at Nairobi this 10th day of February, 2005.
ALNASHIR VISRAM JUDGE