[2025] KEELC 94 (KLR)

[2025] KEELC 94 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant was denied the right to be heard when the court, on its own motion, reversed an earlier order allowing oral submissions, despite the applicant's express request and the court's initial grant of such an opportunity. The court acknowledged errors on the face of the record and,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] KEELC 94 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: African Budget and Executive Homes Company Limited; Plaintiff: David Muriithi Kanyi; Defendant: Middle East Bank Kenya Limited; Defendant: Susan Waweru t/a Trevo Auctioneers
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Malindi
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Miscellaneous Case E010 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Previous Orders and for De Novo Hearing
Outcome
Application allowed; previous ruling and orders set aside; matter to be heard de novo with oral submissions.
Judges
FM Njoroge
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Orders, Right to Be Heard, Oral Submissions, De Novo Hearing
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Setting Aside Orders Right to Be Heard Oral Submissions De Novo Hearing

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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

African Budget and Executive Homes Company Limited

Plaintiff

David Muriithi Kanyi

Plaintiff

Middle East Bank Kenya Limited

Defendant

Susan Waweru t/a Trevo Auctioneers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Previous Orders and for De Novo Hearing

  1. 1 Whether the ruling and orders dated 29/5/2024 should be set aside due to denial of the right to be heard.
  2. 2 Whether the application dated 11/8/2023 should be heard de novo to allow oral submissions by all parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was denied the right to be heard when the court, on its own motion, reversed an earlier order allowing oral submissions, despite the applicant's express request and the court's initial grant of such an opportunity. The court acknowledged errors on the face of the record and, invoking its inherent jurisdiction and the constitutional right to a fair hearing, determined that the only fair course was to set aside the ruling and orders dated 29/5/2024. The court ordered that the application dated 11/8/2023 and the preliminary objection dated 18/9/2023 be heard de novo, with all parties given the opportunity to make oral submissions, and that no further...

Court Disposition

Application allowed; previous ruling and orders set aside; matter to be heard de novo with oral submissions.

Orders

  • The ruling and orders dated 29/5/2024 are hereby set aside.
  • The application dated 11/8/2023 and the preliminary objection dated 18/9/2023 shall be heard orally on 5/2/2025 at 2:00 p.m. in open court.