1. I have considered the NOM application dated 31.10.23 together with the affidavit in support sworn on even date and the grounds of opposition dated 3rd November 2023 and submissions of counsel.
2. I find that the issues raised by the applicant in the said motion are res judicata, the same having been raised in a previous motion dated 26.07.23 and determined by my brother Majanja, J. by way of his ruling issued on 15th September 2023. To my mind no new issues have been raised, and nothing has changed since his said ruling.
3. Moreover, the Applicant has moved this court on the eve of the auction, only one day before the auction, despite the various notice provisions contained in the Land Act and the Auctioneers Rules. I find that the delay is extreme, and no good explanation has been provided in relation to the same.
4. I further find that the application is an abuse of the process, for the further reason that the Ruling dated 15th September, 2023 expressly stated the Applicant has no locus to move this court; in spite of the same, the Applicant has chosen to move this court once again, and based on the same issues, rather preferring an appeal to the said ruling.
5. Based on the reasons above, I am persuaded that the applicant ought to pay costs and I hereby order that costs shall be paid in the sum of Kshs 50,000 given that the present application is not only an abuse of court, but also is vexing.
6. The application is dismissed with costs.
2. I find that the issues raised by the applicant in the said motion are res judicata, the same having been raised in a previous motion dated 26.07.23 and determined by my brother Majanja, J. by way of his ruling issued on 15th September 2023. To my mind no new issues have been raised, and nothing has changed since his said ruling.
3. Moreover, the Applicant has moved this court on the eve of the auction, only one day before the auction, despite the various notice provisions contained in the Land Act and the Auctioneers Rules. I find that the delay is extreme, and no good explanation has been provided in relation to the same.
4. I further find that the application is an abuse of the process, for the further reason that the Ruling dated 15th September, 2023 expressly stated the Applicant has no locus to move this court; in spite of the same, the Applicant has chosen to move this court once again, and based on the same issues, rather preferring an appeal to the said ruling.
5. Based on the reasons above, I am persuaded that the applicant ought to pay costs and I hereby order that costs shall be paid in the sum of Kshs 50,000 given that the present application is not only an abuse of court, but also is vexing.
6. The application is dismissed with costs.