[2025] KEELC 4414 (KLR)

[2025] KEELC 4414 (KLR)

The court found that the orders made on 19/9/2024 did not dismiss the suit but rather stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of a related succession cause in the High Court. The applicant's assertion that the suit was dismissed was not supported by the record. The court clarified that the suit remains active and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEELC 4414 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Teresia Wambui; Plaintiff: Lucy Wamaitha; Plaintiff: Samuel Njoroge Kariuki; Defendant: Land Registrar, Nairobi; Defendant: Francis Kiarie Waweru; Defendant: Attorney General; Appellant: Samuel Njoroge Kariuki
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Nairobi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 204 of 2018
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Reinstatement of Suit
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Judges
JG Kemei
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Non Appearance, Review of Court Orders, Stay of Proceedings, Succession Related Stay
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal for Non Appearance Review of Court Orders Stay of Proceedings Succession Related Stay

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teresia Wambui

Plaintiff

Lucy Wamaitha

Plaintiff

Samuel Njoroge Kariuki

Plaintiff

Land Registrar, Nairobi

Defendant

Francis Kiarie Waweru

Defendant

Attorney General

Defendant

Samuel Njoroge Kariuki

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Review and Reinstatement of Suit

  1. 1 Whether the suit was dismissed or stayed by the court's orders of 19/9/2024.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to review, variation, or setting aside of the orders made on 19/9/2024.
  3. 3 Whether the suit should be reinstated.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the orders made on 19/9/2024 did not dismiss the suit but rather stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of a related succession cause in the High Court. The applicant's assertion that the suit was dismissed was not supported by the record. The court clarified that the suit remains active and that it is the responsibility of the parties to notify the court when the reason for the stay is no longer applicable. Consequently, the application for review, variation, or setting aside of the orders was found to be misconceived and was dismissed with costs to the applicant.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The application dated 31/1/25 is dismissed.
  • The applicant shall pay the costs of the application.