[2020] KEELC 1627 (KLR)

[2020] KEELC 1627 (KLR)

The court found that the Interested Parties' application for extension of time to file and serve pleadings was not opposed by any of the Respondents. Although the explanation given by counsel for the delay—failure to receive the ruling due to technological challenges—was not entirely convincing, the court...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] KEELC 1627 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ahmed Mohammed Khalid; Defendant: Mary Nduta Wafula; Defendant: Carolyne Akinyi Wafula; Defendant: Municipal Council of Bungoma; Interested Party: Collins Munyasia Wafula; Interested Party: Derrick Muganda Wafula; Interested Party: Valtare Andati Wafula
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Bungoma
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 128 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Pleadings
Outcome
Application allowed as prayed; pleadings by Interested Parties deemed duly filed and served subject to payment of court fees.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Filing of Pleadings, Pecuniary Jurisdiction, Transfer of Suit
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Extension of Time Filing of Pleadings Pecuniary Jurisdiction Transfer of Suit

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ahmed Mohammed Khalid

Plaintiff

Mary Nduta Wafula

Defendant

Carolyne Akinyi Wafula

Defendant

Municipal Council of Bungoma

Defendant

Collins Munyasia Wafula

Interested Party

Derrick Muganda Wafula

Interested Party

Valtare Andati Wafula

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Miscellaneous Application / Ruling on Application for Extension of Time to File Pleadings

  1. 1 Whether the Interested Parties should be granted more time to file and serve their pleadings.
  2. 2 Whether the delay in filing pleadings was justified given the circumstances of communication breakdown.
  3. 3 Whether the matter should be transferred to the Subordinate Court due to pecuniary jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Interested Parties' application for extension of time to file and serve pleadings was not opposed by any of the Respondents. Although the explanation given by counsel for the delay—failure to receive the ruling due to technological challenges—was not entirely convincing, the court acknowledged the widespread difficulties with technology during the COVID-19 pandemic. The court held that, in the absence of opposition and given the current circumstances, it was just to allow the application. The pleadings filed by the Interested Parties were deemed duly filed and served, subject to payment of requisite court fees. The court also noted that the matter appeared to fall...

Court Disposition

Application allowed as prayed; pleadings by Interested Parties deemed duly filed and served subject to payment of court fees.

Orders

  • The Interested Parties' Notice of Motion dated 22nd June 2020 is allowed as prayed.
  • The Interested Parties' pleadings filed herein are deemed as duly filed and served subject to payment of requisite court fees.