Sammy Phillip Mbugua v Esther Wangari Ng'ang'a & 1 other

REPUBLIC OF KENYA IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA AT NAKURU CIVIL CASE NUMBER 125 OF 2011 SAMMY PHILLIP MBUGUA..................................PLAINTIFF VERSUS ESTHER WANGARI NG'ANG'A..................1ST DEFENDANT VERONICA GATHONI NGIGI....................2ND DEFENDANT RULING 1. This applicant Sammy Philip G. Mbugua in his application dated 13 th April 2017 seeks an order of stay of execution of the decree and revival of the suit. He further seeks that the court be pleased to review or vary its ruling made on the 8 th March 2013. The said ruling of 8th March 2013 (H. Omondi J) struck out the applicant’s suit with costs to the defendants, for reasons that the suit was barred by statute of limitation, and by a null and void contract that the court could not enforce. 2. By a ruling dated 7th April 2017 by this court, I found that as there was no competent suit on record the same having been struck out on the 8th March 2013, I could not grant the applicant an order to extend time for him to respond to an application that the suit was Res judicata. This was upon his notice of motion dated 21st April 2016. 3. The applicant by the present application seeks an order of Review, of the dismissal order of the suit. It is brought under numerous legal provisions save for the correct Order 45 of Civil Procedure Rules. Though ignorance of the law is not a defence, the applicant acting in person may be excused by quoting irrelevant legal provisions of the law. (See Article 159(2) (d) of the Constitution. 4. I have considered the reasons in support of the application. One is that the 2nd defendant died before the conclusion of the suit. The other is that the applicant stands to suffer irreparable loss and damage if orders of review are not granted. 5. The Respondent opposes the application by Replying Affidavit sworn on the 2 nd May 2017 by Githui Advocate. It is evident that the applicant’s suit was struck out as being incompetent and an abuse of the court process on the 8 th March 2013. The fact of the 2nd defendant having died on the 22 nd October 2013 long after the suit was struck out cannot be termed as new evidence to qualify for a Review of the striking out order. 6. This application is by the plaintiff. The new evidence alleged is a sale agreement dated 3 rd March 2006. I have looked at the said agreement (SPGMI). It was executed between the applicant and the 2 nd Respondent. The applicant was party to the agreement. It cannot be said that the applicant did not know about the sale agreement during and before the filing of the suit. It cannot meet the requirements of an application for review. Having signed the same, its contents were well known to him, there having been no fraud, misrepresentation or mistake by either party. 7. I have noted that the applicant failed to appeal against the dismissal order of the suit presently, there is no suit standing. Similar applications were filed and the courts found no merit in the applications. This is but another attempt to circumtwist the court to set aside the dismissal order upon no good grounds. (Order 45 of Civil Procedure Rules). A land case may be emotive but this alone will not persuade a court to set aside orders granted upon hearing with participation of parties

page 1 of 2