[2010] KEHC 2235 (KLR)

[2010] KEHC 2235 (KLR)

The court found that there was no basis for issuing further directions as neither party had formally moved the court to correct or clarify the alleged error in the previous ruling. The judge noted that if any party believed there was an error in the ruling of 18th January 2009, the proper course was to make a formal...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2010] KEHC 2235 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Stephen Waweru; Defendant: The Committee Nyandundo Primary School; Defendant: Director of Settlement
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Nakuru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Civil Suit 232 of 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Post Ruling Directions After Preliminary Objection and Bill of Costs Taxation
Outcome
No further directions given; parties advised to move the court if they seek correction of the previous ruling.
Legal Topics
Preliminary Objection, Directions by Court, Bill of Costs, Setting Down for Hearing
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Preliminary Objection Directions by Court Bill of Costs Setting Down for Hearing

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Legal principles 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Waweru

Plaintiff

The Committee Nyandundo Primary School

Defendant

Director of Settlement

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Post Ruling Directions After Preliminary Objection and Bill of Costs Taxation

  1. 1 Whether the direction to set the suit down for hearing after overruling the preliminary objection was erroneous given the matter had already been heard.
  2. 2 What directions, if any, the court should give regarding the confusion caused by the previous ruling.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no basis for issuing further directions as neither party had formally moved the court to correct or clarify the alleged error in the previous ruling. The judge noted that if any party believed there was an error in the ruling of 18th January 2009, the proper course was to make a formal application to the court. In the absence of such an application, the court declined to give any further directions and left the matter to be addressed through appropriate legal channels if necessary.

Court Disposition

No further directions given; parties advised to move the court if they seek correction of the previous ruling.

Orders

  • No orders issued; parties to move the court appropriately if they seek correction or clarification.