SheriaNet for Android — search and read Kenyan case law from your phone, offline.
Join the beta →

KENYA COMMERCIAL BANK v DAVID GACHUIGA & 2 others [2008] KEHC 2270 (KLR)

[2008] KEHC 2270 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
2270
Citation
[2008] KEHC 2270 (KLR)
Decided
30 June 2008
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeCivilPostureAppeal from a judgment entered against the 2nd defendant on 19th July 1996, where the 2nd defendant filed an application for stay of execution and setting aside the judgment.CoramMARY KASANGO
Holding

The plaintiff's application is merited, and the 2nd defendant's application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Facts

A judgment was entered against the 2nd defendant on 19th July 1996. The 2nd defendant filed an application by way of Chamber Summons dated 29th November 1999, which was granted a temporary stay of execution until 9th February 2000. The application was opposed by the 2nd defendant, and the plaintiff sought dismissal of the application for want of prosecution.

Issues

  1. Whether the plaintiff's application for dismissal of the 2nd defendant's application dated 29th November 1999 is merited.
  2. Whether the 2nd defendant's application is res judicata based on the court's ruling dated 18th July 2007.

Reasoning

The court found that the 2nd defendant failed to fix the application for hearing since November 1999, and the application was not res judicata as the proceedings before the court were different.

Outcome

The 2nd defendant's application is dismissed for want of prosecution.

Orders

  • The 2nd defendant's Chamber summons dated 29th November 1999 is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • The cost of the application dated 29th November 1999 and of the notice of motion dated 28th January 2008 are hereby granted to the plaintiff as against the 2nd defendant.

Remedies

  • Dismissal of the 2nd defendant's application for want of prosecution.
Experimental AI summary generated by a language model, not a lawyer. It may contain errors or omissions and must not be relied on for legal decisions — the full judgment below is the authoritative source.
Full judgment 0.1 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case