Case Metadata |
|
Case Number: | Civil Appeal 61 of 2014 |
---|---|
Parties: | Mohammud Mohammed Alio & Abdullahi Ismael Morow v Richard Obiero Nyakundi |
Date Delivered: | 06 May 2015 |
Case Class: | Civil |
Court: | Court of Appeal at Kisii |
Case Action: | Order |
Judge(s): | David Kenani Maraga, Daniel Kiio Musinga, Agnes Kalekye Murgor |
Citation: | Mohammud Mohammed Alio & another v Richard Obiero Nyakundi [2015] eKLR |
Case History: | (Appeal from the Ruling and Order of the High Court of Kenya at Kisii ( Okong'o, J.) dated 6th day of June, 2014 H.C.C. SUIT NO. 377 OF 2013 |
Court Division: | Civil |
County: | Kisii |
History Docket No: | H.C.C. Suit No. 377 of 2013 |
History Judges: | Samson Odhiambo Okong'o |
History County: | Kisii |
Disclaimer: | The information contained in the above segment is not part of the judicial opinion delivered by the Court. The metadata has been prepared by Kenya Law as a guide in understanding the subject of the judicial opinion. Kenya Law makes no warranties as to the comprehensiveness or accuracy of the information |
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
AT KISII
(CORAM: MARAGA,MUSINGA & MURGOR,JJ.A.)
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 61 OF 2014
BETWEEN
MOHAMMUD MOHAMMED ALIO
ABDULLAHI ISMAEL MOROW....................................................APPELLANTS
AND
RICHARD OBIERO NYAKUNDI......................................................RESPONDENT
(Appeal from the Ruling and Order of the High Court of Kenya at Kisii
( Okong'o, J.) dated 6th day of June, 2014
H.C.C. SUIT NO. 377 OF 2013
************************
ORDER OF THE COURT
When this appeal was called out for hearing, this Court, on its own motion, expressed to counsel its unwillingness to hear it considering the nature of the matter in dispute.
The trial Court ordered that pending hearing and determination of the substantive suit pending before it, neither party should enter, develop, lease or transfer the suit property, namely L.R. No. Kisii Municipality/Block 1/757.
Each of the parties claim to be the rightful owner of the property and the trial judge heed that the issue of ownership of the suit property could only be conclusively determined upon hearing vica voce evidence. He therefore declined to grant the interlocutory orders that were being sought by the appellant.
We are in agreement with the views expressed by the trial judge.
When the court notified counsel of its views as hereinabove stated, Mr. Bosire, learned counsel for the appellant, applied to withdraw the appeal but requested that an order be made for the substantive suit to be heard on priority basis, to which Mr. Ochoki, learned counsel for the respondent, had no objection.
In the circumstances, this appeal is marked as withdrawn under rule 96 (5) of this Court's Rules with no order as to costs.
We further recommend that H.C.C.C. No. 377 of 2013 be heard on priority basis.
DATED at Kisii this 6th day of May, 2015
D.K.MARAGA
..................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
D.K. MUSINGA
.................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
A.K.MURGOR
..................................
JUDGE OF APPEAL
I certify that this is a true copy of the original.
DEPUTY REGISTRAR