REPUBLIC OF KENYA High Court at Kakamega Succession Cause 843 of 2007 MICHAEL ONZERE ANGALIKA …. …..………….….. PETITIONER AND SARAH ATEMO INGUTU …………….…. OBJECTOR/APPLICANT RULING The application by way of Notice of Motion dated 23.1.12 seeks orders that this court do review, quash or set aside the orders herein made on 4th May, 2011. The application is supported by the affidavit in support sworn on 23.1.12 by the applicant, SARAH A. INGUTU. According to the said affidavit the court made orders for the applicant to pay the respondent Kshs.25,000/=. The applicant has averred that she is unable to raise the said sum of Kshs.25,000/= as she relies on “casual jobs”. In opposition to the application, the respondent, MICHAEL ONZERE ANGALUKA swore a replying affidavit on 18.6.12. The respondent saw no merits in the application. The respondent termed the application as incompetent and stated that the applicant is not a widow as stated in the applicant’s affidavit. The applicant however stated in court that the term “widow” is an error on her part due to her being illiterate and the correct position is that her husband is a person of unsound mind. The applicant has given her financial status as the reason why she cannot be able to pay the Kshs.25,000/= costs awarded by the court. However, “it is settled law that a consent judgment can only be set aside on the same grounds as would justify the setting aside of a contract, for example fraud, mistake or misrepresentation” (see FLORA N. WASIKE VS DESTIMO WAMBOKA [1982 – 88] I KAR 625. The applicant has therefore not shown sufficient reasons why the court should interfere with consent orders recorded on 4.5.2011. The application is dismissed with costs. Delivered, dated and signed at Kakamega this 4th day of October, 2012 B. THURANIRA JADEN 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.