[2022] KEHC 13935 (KLR)

[2022] KEHC 13935 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's applications were not anchored on any substantive suit as required by law, specifically section 19 of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court further held that the orders the applicant sought to enforce had already been discharged when...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEHC 13935 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Rift Valley Railways Workers Union (K); Respondent: J. Mahinga MD Kenya Railways; Respondent: Kenya Railways Corporation; Respondent: Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme; Interested Party: Retirement Benefits Authority; Interested Party: Masore Nyang’au & CO. ADV; Interested Party: Albert Mumma & CO. ADV
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Case E113 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection upheld; applications and proceedings struck out
Judges
JK Sergon
Legal Topics
Preliminary Objection, Abuse of Court Process, Striking Out Proceedings
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Preliminary Objection Abuse of Court Process Striking Out Proceedings

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rift Valley Railways Workers Union (K)

Plaintiff

J. Mahinga MD Kenya Railways

Respondent

Kenya Railways Corporation

Respondent

Kenya Railways Staff Retirement Benefits Scheme

Respondent

Retirement Benefits Authority

Interested Party

Masore Nyang’au & CO. ADV

Interested Party

Albert Mumma & CO. ADV

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Case / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the applications filed by the applicant are competent in the absence of a substantive suit as required by law.
  2. 2 Whether the orders sought to be enforced by the applicant still exist or have been discharged.
  3. 3 Whether the repeated filing of applications in a miscellaneous file amounts to an abuse of the court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's applications were not anchored on any substantive suit as required by law, specifically section 19 of the Civil Procedure Act and Orders 3 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The court further held that the orders the applicant sought to enforce had already been discharged when the original suit (CMCC No 4416 of 2019) was struck out for want of jurisdiction. The repeated filing of applications in a miscellaneous file without a substantive suit was deemed an abuse of the court process, rendering the proceedings incompetent and fatally defective. Consequently, the preliminary objection was upheld, and all the applicant's applications and the entire...

Court Disposition

preliminary objection upheld; applications and proceedings struck out

Orders

  • The applicant’s applications dated May 12, 2021, July 8, 2022, and July 27, 2022 are struck out.
  • The entire proceedings are struck out.