Skip to content
AI-generated case briefs sourced from Kenya Law · Not legal advice
Original judgment

Ngarari M’thani v Edita Wambugu & 4 others

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT EMBU Civil Case 22 of 2001 NGARARI M’THANI……………………...........……..…………………….PLAINTIFF VERSUS EDITA WAMBUGU………...………………………...……………1ST DEFENDANT WAMAI NJENGA………….……….……………...…...…………2ND DEFENDANT MWANIKI NYAGA……………….……………………....……….3RD DEFENDANT PATRICK MUGO NYAGA………………………….….......……..4TH DEFENDANT RUTH S.K. NYAGA………………….…………………..........…. 5TH DEFENDANT RULING This suit is part heard by Hon. Justice I. Lenaola who is no longer in this station. However he has undertaken to finalize the hearing when he visits this court soon to finalize his other part-heard matters. In the interim the applicant approached this court for orders under certificate of urgency and an interim orders were granted on 18/1/2006. The inter-parties was heard and parties argued their cases. The applicant pleads that they have good chances of success and fraud is pleaded and if the constructions continues or is completed it is detrimental to the applicants interests. The Respondent opposes the application on the ground that the land in dispute was sold by deceased’s father and this is not disclosed by the Applicant. My view is that no party is entitled to take law into their own hands. The parties are already in court and an issue of that nature should be argued in court at the trial. In my view it is contempt of court and an abuse of court process to decide for any party to take decisions on issues which they have placed in the hands of the court to decide. Another Judge is still seized of this matter. In the interim pending his finalization of the trial I allow the application and grant orders as prayed. Costs shall be in the cause. Dated this 11th May 2006. J.K. KHAMINWA JUDGE

A note on accuracy. These pages are generated automatically from our AI-written case briefs and have not been checked by a lawyer. Case titles and citations come from Kenya Law; the counts, topics, propositions and “treatment” labels are derived from the briefs and can be incomplete or wrong. Use them as a research aid and always read the original judgment before relying on anything here. This is not legal advice.