Peter Njuguna Gitau v Agnes Muthoni Nyaga & 3 others [2016] KEHC 2189 (KLR)
- Court
- High Court of Kenya
- Case number
- 2189
- Citation
- [2016] KEHC 2189 (KLR)
- Decided
- 14 October 2016
AI Summary
Beta
Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeAppealPostureAppeal from a judgment declaring defendants trespassers and granting a permanent injunction
Holding
The application is dismissed with costs
Facts
The plaintiff/respondent sought to evict the defendants/applicants from the suit land, which was declared as trespassers. The defendants/applicants filed an application to set aside the judgment and set the suit for a defence hearing.
Issues
- Error in the record regarding the type of structures on the suit land
- Mandatory service of a hearing notice
Reasoning
The court found no error in the record regarding the type of structures on the suit land, as the plaintiff/respondent had provided the information. The court also ruled that the mandatory service of a hearing notice was not violated.
Outcome
Application dismissed
Orders
- The Ruling and Order of this Court made on 19th August 2016 dismissing the Notice of Motion application filed herein on 19th August 2016 (the Notice of Motion was infact dated 13th February 2016 and filed on 15th February 2016) together with all other consequential orders be reviewed, varied and set aside
- The judgment entered on 27th November 2015 as against the defendants/applicants be set aside and this suit be set down for defence hearing
- Costs of this application be provided for
Remedies
- Review, variation, and setting aside of the Ruling and Order of this Court made on 19th August 2016 dismissing the Notice of Motion application filed herein on 19th August 2016
- Setting aside the judgment entered on 27th November 2015 as against the defendants/applicants and setting the suit for a defence hearing
- Providing for costs of this application
Authorities cited
Legislation (2)
- Civil Procedure Act
- Order 45 of the Civil Procedure Rules 2010
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.
Loading judgment…