[2018] KEHC 8245 (KLR)

[2018] KEHC 8245 (KLR)

The court found that the petition was not properly presented as there was no evidence of filing or payment of requisite fees. The petitioner also failed to comply with court directions to facilitate a survey and to file written submissions. Furthermore, the court held that the dispute was a boundary dispute, which...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] KEHC 8245 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Amos Albert Njeru; Respondent: District Land Registrar Imenti North/South District; Respondent: John Bendera Mwongera; Respondent: The Hon. Attorney General
Court
High Court
Court Station
High Court at Meru
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 18 of 2016
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Judgment
Outcome
petition dismissed with costs to respondents
Legal Topics
Boundary Disputes, Proper Filing, Prosecution of Petitions
Source Language
en
Land and Property Boundary Disputes Proper Filing Prosecution of Petitions

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amos Albert Njeru

Applicant

District Land Registrar Imenti North/South District

Respondent

John Bendera Mwongera

Respondent

The Hon. Attorney General

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Constitutional Petition / Judgment

  1. 1 Whether the petition was properly filed and presented before the court.
  2. 2 Whether the petitioner complied with court directions regarding the survey and written submissions.
  3. 3 Whether a boundary dispute is properly brought as a constitutional petition.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the petition was not properly presented as there was no evidence of filing or payment of requisite fees. The petitioner also failed to comply with court directions to facilitate a survey and to file written submissions. Furthermore, the court held that the dispute was a boundary dispute, which does not fall within the scope of a constitutional petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed for want of proper presentation and prosecution, and for being an abuse of the constitutional petition process.

Court Disposition

petition dismissed with costs to respondents

Orders

  • The suit is dismissed with costs to the respondents.