[2022] KEELC 15622 (KLR)

[2022] KEELC 15622 (KLR)

The court found that there was no indication the notice of motion to strike out the originating summons was ever served on the applicants' counsel. Both parties were absent at the hearing, and no reasons were provided for their absence. In the interest of justice, and as previously noted in the court's proceedings,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] KEELC 15622 (KLR)
Parties
Applicant: Francis Ogola Amoth; Applicant: Peter Osore; Applicant: Tomas Ochieng Abuto; Applicant: Moses Okongo Dinga (Suing as Legal Administrator of the Estate of Mary Aoko - Deceased); Respondent: Alloyce Odhiambo Dolu; Respondent: Isabela Dulo; Respondent: George Onono Dulo; Respondent: Michael Ouma Dulo; Respondent: Pius Okuku Dulo alias Joseph
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Homa Bay
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Environment & Land Case 16 of 2021
Procedural Posture
Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Strike Out Originating Summons
Outcome
notice of motion dismissed
Judges
GMA Ongondo
Legal Topics
Dismissal of Application, Service of Process, Striking Out Pleadings
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Dismissal of Application Service of Process Striking Out Pleadings

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Ogola Amoth

Applicant

Peter Osore

Applicant

Tomas Ochieng Abuto

Applicant

Moses Okongo Dinga (Suing as Legal Administrator of the Estate of Mary Aoko - Deceased)

Applicant

Alloyce Odhiambo Dolu

Respondent

Isabela Dulo

Respondent

George Onono Dulo

Respondent

Michael Ouma Dulo

Respondent

Pius Okuku Dulo alias Joseph

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Environment and Land Case / Ruling on Notice of Motion to Strike Out Originating Summons

  1. 1 Whether the notice of motion to strike out the originating summons should be allowed in the absence of the parties.
  2. 2 Whether the notice of motion was properly served on the applicants.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that there was no indication the notice of motion to strike out the originating summons was ever served on the applicants' counsel. Both parties were absent at the hearing, and no reasons were provided for their absence. In the interest of justice, and as previously noted in the court's proceedings, the court dismissed the notice of motion. The court emphasized the importance of service and participation by parties in the proceedings, and that applications cannot be determined without proper notification and opportunity to be heard.

Court Disposition

notice of motion dismissed

Orders

  • The notice of motion dated June 19, 2022 is dismissed.
  • Costs in the cause.