[2014] KEHC 1118 (KLR)

[2014] KEHC 1118 (KLR)

The court held that it retains jurisdiction to hear the application for review because the matter falls within the exceptions provided by the Practice Directions on land matters, and the application for review is not equivalent to an appeal. The issues of laches and contempt are factual and cannot be determined by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] KEHC 1118 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Stephen Kavoo Mwau; Applicant: Mbaka Kithuka; Applicant: Francis Mativo Mang’oka; Respondent: Joseph Mathukilu Kivungi
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Machakos
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Appeal 168 of 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection
Outcome
preliminary objection dismissed
Judges
BT Jaden
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction of High Court, Preliminary Objection, Review of Ruling, Stay of Execution
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Jurisdiction of High Court Preliminary Objection Review of Ruling Stay of Execution

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Kavoo Mwau

Applicant

Mbaka Kithuka

Applicant

Francis Mativo Mang’oka

Applicant

Joseph Mathukilu Kivungi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Ruling on Preliminary Objection

  1. 1 Whether the High Court's jurisdiction has been ousted by the Environment and Land Court Act.
  2. 2 Whether the application for stay is res judicata due to a previous ruling.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are guilty of laches or contempt of court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that it retains jurisdiction to hear the application for review because the matter falls within the exceptions provided by the Practice Directions on land matters, and the application for review is not equivalent to an appeal. The issues of laches and contempt are factual and cannot be determined by way of preliminary objection, which is limited to pure points of law. The question of whether the ruling is clear and unambiguous is a substantive issue for the pending application, not for summary determination. Consequently, the preliminary objection lacked merit and was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

preliminary objection dismissed

Orders

  • The preliminary objection dated 18/7/2013 is dismissed with costs.
  • The application dated 8/7/2013 to be fixed for hearing interpartes on priority basis.