[2023] KEELC 17824 (KLR)

[2023] KEELC 17824 (KLR)

The court found that the matter had been resolved at the family level through alternative dispute resolution as encouraged by Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution. The preliminary objection regarding the applicant's counsel being improperly on record was not pursued and was marked as abandoned. The orders...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] KEELC 17824 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Benson Otieno Adongo; Respondent: George Adha Adongo; Respondent: Philip Juma Ajijo
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Miscellaneous Application E013 of 2022
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Notice of Motion
Outcome
Application resolved; preliminary objection abandoned; previous orders vacated; costs to applicant.
Judges
GMA Ongondo
Legal Topics
Change of Advocate, Preliminary Objection, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Costs Orders
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Family and Children Change of Advocate Preliminary Objection Alternative Dispute Resolution Costs Orders

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Benson Otieno Adongo

Applicant

George Adha Adongo

Respondent

Philip Juma Ajijo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Preliminary Objection and Notice of Motion

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's counsel was properly on record in compliance with Order 9 Rules 9, 10 and 11 of the Civil Procedure Rules, 2010.
  2. 2 Whether the preliminary objection should be marked as abandoned.
  3. 3 Whether the orders issued on March 2, 2023 should be vacated due to lapse.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the matter had been resolved at the family level through alternative dispute resolution as encouraged by Article 159(2)(c) of the Constitution. The preliminary objection regarding the applicant's counsel being improperly on record was not pursued and was marked as abandoned. The orders previously issued on March 2, 2023 had lapsed and were vacated. The court exercised its discretion to order that the costs of the application be borne by the applicant, given the resolution of the matter outside the court process and the abandonment of the preliminary objection.

Court Disposition

Application resolved; preliminary objection abandoned; previous orders vacated; costs to applicant.

Orders

  • The preliminary objection is marked as abandoned with no orders as to costs.
  • Orders of March 2, 2023 are vacated as they have lapsed.