[2010] KEHC 834 (KLR)
The court determined that its ruling of 14th May 2010, which dismissed the application as against the 2nd Defendant, also had the effect of dismissing the substantive suit against the 2nd Defendant. This was based on the preliminary objections raised regarding limitation and the nature of the registration by...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2010] KEHC 834 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Stephen Mbuthia Gichuriu; Plaintiff: Michael Muriuki Karia; Plaintiff: Christopher Kaburia Gichuriu; Defendant: Jackson Njogu Gichuriu; Defendant: Sammy Mwangi Ruhara
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nyeri
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Civil Case 163 of 2009
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Directions After Interlocutory Application Ruling
- Outcome
- Suit against the 2nd Defendant dismissed; suit against the 1st Defendant survives.
- Legal Topics
- Interlocutory Injunctions, Preliminary Objections, Limitation of Actions, Land Title Disputes
- 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
Stephen Mbuthia Gichuriu
Plaintiff
Michael Muriuki Karia
Plaintiff
Christopher Kaburia Gichuriu
Plaintiff
Jackson Njogu Gichuriu
Defendant
Sammy Mwangi Ruhara
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Directions After Interlocutory Application Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court's ruling of 14th May 2010 dismissed the entire suit or only the application as against the 2nd Defendant.
- 2 Whether the suit against the 2nd Defendant was concluded by the ruling.
- 3 Whether the suit against the 1st Defendant survived after the ruling.
Ratio Decidendi
The court determined that its ruling of 14th May 2010, which dismissed the application as against the 2nd Defendant, also had the effect of dismissing the substantive suit against the 2nd Defendant. This was based on the preliminary objections raised regarding limitation and the nature of the registration by transmission, which the court treated as going to the root of the suit. Consequently, the suit against the 2nd Defendant was concluded, while the suit against the 1st Defendant survived, as the prayers for injunction were allowed against him. The court clarified that the correct interpretation of its earlier ruling was that the suit against the 2nd Defendant was dismissed in its...
Court Disposition
Suit against the 2nd Defendant dismissed; suit against the 1st Defendant survives.
Orders
- The suit against the 2nd Defendant, Sammy Mwangi Ruhara, is dismissed in its entirety.
- The suit against the 1st Defendant, Jackson Njogu Gichuriu, survives and remains pending for determination.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
27 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NYERI
CIVIL CASE NO. 163 OF 2009
STEPHEN MBUTHIA GICHURIU
MICHAEL MURIUKI KARIA..........................................................................PLAINTIFF/APPLICANTS
CHRISTOPHER KABURIA GICHURIU
VERSUS
JACKSON NJOGU GICHURIU.......................................................1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
SAMMY MWANGI RUHARA...........................................................2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
ORDER ON DIRECTIONS
This Court heard the Summons dated 6th November 2009 and by its ruling delivered on 14th May 2010, the same was allowed in terms of prayers 2 and 4 as against the 1st Defendant but was dismissed as against the 2nd Defendant. On 4th October 2010, learned counsels appearing in this matter appeared for mention to seeking for the interpretation of this Court’s ruling delivered on 14th May 2010.
It is the submission of Mr. Karweru, learned advocate for SAMMY MWANGI RUHARA, the 2nd Defendant, that this Court dismissed the entire suit vide the aforesaid ruling. MR. KAMWENJIandLOMPO, learned advocates for the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant respectively, were of the view that this Court merely dismissed the application dated 16th November 2009 and not the suit in its ruling of 14th May 2010.
I have carefully considered the divergence views taken by learned counsels. There is no dispute that what was before this Court on 20th April 2010 was the Summons dated 6th November 2009 in which the Plaintiffs sought for the following orders:
“THAT service of this application be dispensed with and this application be heard ex parte in the first instance.
THAT the 1st defendant/respondent by himself, agent or anybody else working under him by temporary injunction be restrained from selling, leasing, charging, or in any other way parting with possession of land parcel No. IRIA-INI/CHEHE/1446 pending the hearing and determination of this application inter parties and or until the hearing and determination of this suit.
THAT the 2nd defendant/respondent by himself, agents or anybody else working under him by a temporary injunction be restrained from selling, leasing, charging or in any other way parting with possession of land parcel No. IRIA-INI/CHEHE/1445 pending the hearing and determination of this application inter parties and or until the hearing and determination of this suit.
THAT costs of this application be provided for.”
The 2nd Defendant opposed the aforesaid application by filing a replying affidavit he swore on 12th February 2010. He also put forward grounds of opposition set out as follows:
(a)“THAT the suit is incurably defective having been instituted out of time for a tort of fraud.
(b)THAT the suit is a non-starter in law the initial registration having been by way of transmission which is not challengeable.
(c)THAT orders sought do not lie.”
The record shows that this court treated the aforesaid grounds as preliminary points of law against both the originating summons and the application. In the end this Court dismissed the entire application as against the 2nd Defendant. With respect, I agree with the submissions of Mr. Karweru, learned advocate for the 2nd Defendant that the correct interpretation of this Court’s ruling of 14th May 2010 is to the effect that the substantive suit (O.S. dated 6th November 2009) and the summons dated 9th November 2009 were dismissed as against the 2nd Defendant. The ruling allowed the prayers 2 and 4 as against Jackson Njogu Gichuriu, the 1st Defendant herein. It is clear that the suit against the 1st Defendant survived whereas that against the 2nd Defendant was concluded. These are the directions of this Court.
Dated and delivered at Nyeri this 7th day of October, 2010.
J. K. SERGON
JUDGE
In open court in the presence of Mr. Karweru for the 2nd Defendant and Mr. Kioni for the Defendants and no appearance for Kamwenji for Plaintiff.