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

Dindi Oscar Okumu v Robert Pavel Oimeke & 5 others [2021] KEHC 3575 (KLR)

[2021] KEHC 3575 (KLR) High Court of Kenya
Read PDF
Court
High Court of Kenya
Case number
3575
Citation
[2021] KEHC 3575 (KLR)
Decided
23 September 2021
AI Summary Beta Machine-generated — may contain errors. Not legal advice.
TypeConstitutional PetitionPostureAppeal from an original trialCoramMary Kasango, OF MUTHOMI AND KARAN
Holding

The Court finds that the firm of Muthomi and Karanja Company Advocates is properly on record as they filed a Notice of Change of Advocate before entry of judgment and while the suit was pending determination. The Petition was not brought in public interest and is not exempted from costs.

Facts

The Petitioner, Dindi Oscar Okumu, filed a petition against Robert Pavel Oimeke and five other respondents alleging violations of constitutional rights and fundamental freedoms. The Petitioner withdrew the application and petition on March 10, 2020, and the Court directed submission on the issue of costs.

Issues

  1. Whether the firm of Muthomi and Karanja Company Advocates is properly on record.
  2. Whether the Petition was brought in public interest and therefore exempted from costs.

Reasoning

The Court reviewed the pleadings and the court file record to determine if the firm of Muthomi and Karanja Company Advocates was properly on record. The Court found that the Notice of Change of Advocate filed by the firm was proper and that they were properly on record.

Outcome

The Petitioner is ordered to pay costs.

Orders

  • Order for costs to be made against the Petitioner as the Petitioner had no boni fide legal dispute against the 1st Respondent and that the Application and Petition are frivolous, scandalous and vexatious.

Authorities cited

Cases cited (2)
  • John Langat v Kipkemoi Terer & 2 others [2013] eKLR
  • Florence Hare Mkaha v Pani Tawakal Mini Coach & another [2014] eKLR
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 0.2 MB · PDF

Loading judgment…

Cite this case


        
        
      

Share this case