[2017] KEHC 4642 (KLR)

[2017] KEHC 4642 (KLR)

The court found that the prayer for stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal was res judicata, as it had already been determined in previous applications. However, the court noted that prayer 3 of the application dated 5th December, 2016 had not been canvassed or determined after the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] KEHC 4642 (KLR)
Parties
Appellant: Rift Valley Railways Kenya Ltd; Respondent: Jeremiah Kyalo Mwanthi; Respondent: Isiah O. Nyangweso; Respondent: Christopher Mwandiki; Respondent: The Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Commercial Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 82 of 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Application for Stay and Related Reliefs
Outcome
Application to proceed to hearing only on prayer 3; other prayers dismissed as res judicata.
Judges
LM Njuguna
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Abuse of Process, Stay of Execution, Preliminary Objection
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Res Judicata Abuse of Process Stay of Execution Preliminary Objection

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

Rift Valley Railways Kenya Ltd

Appellant

Jeremiah Kyalo Mwanthi

Respondent

Isiah O. Nyangweso

Respondent

Christopher Mwandiki

Respondent

The Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection to Application for Stay and Related Reliefs

  1. 1 Whether the application dated 5th December, 2016 is res judicata.
  2. 2 Whether the application constitutes an abuse of the court process.
  3. 3 Whether the application should be dismissed in its entirety or partially heard.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the prayer for stay of execution pending the hearing and determination of the appeal was res judicata, as it had already been determined in previous applications. However, the court noted that prayer 3 of the application dated 5th December, 2016 had not been canvassed or determined after the dismissal of the appeal. Consequently, the court held that only prayer 3 of the application should proceed to hearing, while the rest of the application was barred by the doctrine of res judicata. No order was made as to costs.

Court Disposition

Application to proceed to hearing only on prayer 3; other prayers dismissed as res judicata.

Orders

  • The application dated 5th December, 2016 shall proceed for hearing only with respect to prayer 3.
  • No order as to costs.