Case Metadata |
|
| Case Number: | Civil Case 1640 of 80 |
|---|---|
| Parties: | Paul Njagi v Mutugu Kagwai & Paul Chege Waikama |
| Date Delivered: | 24 Oct 1988 |
| Case Class: | Civil |
| Court: | High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts) |
| Case Action: | Ruling |
| Judge(s): | Effie Owuor |
| Citation: | Paul Njagi v Mutugu Kagwai & anothe[1988] eKLR |
| Advocates: | Mr. Ngatia for the 2nd Defendant/Respondent Mr. Kapila for Mr. Mwihia for the applicant |
| Court Division: | Civil |
| Advocates: | Mr. Ngatia for the 2nd Defendant/Respondent Mr. Kapila for Mr. Mwihia for the applicant |
| History Advocates: | Both Parties Represented |
| Case Outcome: | application dismissed |
| 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 |
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI
(MILIMANI LAW COURTS)
CIVIL CASE 1640 OF 1980
PAUL NJAGI…................................………APPLICANT
VERSUS
MUTUGU KAGWAI)
PAUL CHEGE WAIKAMA)………….RESPONDENTS
R U L I N G
In objecting to an application filed by Mr. Mwihia on behalf of the applicant seeking for several orders namely:-
“(a) That the decree be amended to conform with the Judgment of this court;
(b) That the annexed decree be approved as the decree of this court;
(c) That the plaintiff be allowed to nominate his mother Raphaela Njeri Paul Njagi as the transferee of the suit land;
(d) That the Deputy Registrar be authorized to sign the transfer documents to effect the registration of Raphaela Njeri Paul Njagi as legal absolute owner of the land title No.Loc.7/Ichagaki/1049.”
Mr. Ngatia for the Respondent has taken a preliminary point to the effect that the so called applicant in this matter has no locus standi in the suit. On checking the record Mr. Mwihia does conceded that he was acting under a mistake in that the application which would have placed the applicant as a party in this suit was never actually heard. At the end of it Mr. Mwihia applied to the court to withdraw the application.
Mr. Ngatia has objected to this cause on the ground that the application has been argued on the basis of preliminary objection and therefore and therefore the application must be dismissed. I agree with Mr. Ngatia. The application whether argued on a preliminary point or the whole application, the end result is that the application has been argued, fully canvassed and so the question of introducing it does not arise.
I hereby therefore uphold Mr. Ngatia on his preliminary point and dismiss the application.
Costs to the Respondent.
Order accordingly.
E. OWUOR
JUDGE
24/10/88:
Coram: Owuor, J
Mr. Ngatia for the 2nd Defendant/Respondent
Mr. Kapila for Mr. Mwihia for the applicant
Court clerk – Njehia
Court:
Ruling read in Chambers.
E. OWUOR
JUDGE
Please Wait. Searching ...