REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAIROBI (NAIROBI LAW COURTS) Civil Case 1301 of 2004 JUDITH WAMBUI GATEI ……………......................................…………1ST PLAINTIFF FRANCIS MUIRURI GATEI …………...................................…………..2ND PLAINTIFF VERSUS NGUGI MUIRURI …………………….......................................…………..DEFENDANT RULING The defendant Ngugi Muiruri moved the court by Chamber Summons seeking an order to “strike out the plaintiff’s suit with costs to the defendant, “ on the grounds that the same is “res judicata”, and therefore “scandalous, frivolous and vexacious”. The application is dated 10th May, 2005. The plaintiffs filed grounds of opposition, one of the grounds being that “the applicant (defendant) is guilty of concealment and or non/disclosure of all matters in H.C Succession Cause No. 1775 of 1993”, which is material and or has a bearing to this suit”. The advocates representing the parties CONSENTED to HAVE THE APPLICATION DECIDED BY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, which they prepared and presented to court on 27.3.2006. However, on perusal of the application plus the supporting affidavit, and annextures, as well as the Grounds of Opposition filed, I discovered that the dispute herein revolves around a piece of land namely GITHUNGURI/IKINU/76, which was the subject of dispute in H.C. Succession Cause No. 1775 of 1883, which was decided by my order of 8th October, 2002. In these circumstances, I find that the justice of the case requires that the present application be heard and determined by ANOTHER JUDGE. In the circumstances therefore I hereby DISQUALIFY myself from handling this matter and direct that the same be placed before any other judge who did not handle the Succession Cause which has given rise to this case. Dated at Nairobi this 9th day of June, 2006. JOYCE ALUOCH 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.