[2012] KEHC 3448 (KLR)
The court found that the applicant, through counsel, had taken all reasonable steps to fix the matter for hearing, but was impeded by a congested court diary. The court accepted the applicant's explanation for the delay and determined that there was no laxity or deliberate inaction. The court further held that the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] KEHC 3448 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Benard Mbaluka Ngula; Respondent: Zahura Njeri Kuria; Respondent: Mugo Njeru; Respondent: Attorney General
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 115 of 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Interim Orders
- Outcome
- Application allowed. Interim orders extended for 12 months from the date of ruling.
- Judges
- REA Ougo
- Legal Topics
- Interim Injunctions, Extension of Orders, Status Quo Preservation
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Benard Mbaluka Ngula
Applicant
Zahura Njeri Kuria
Respondent
Mugo Njeru
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Interlocutory Application for Extension of Interim Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the interim orders issued on 17th May 2011 should be extended until determination of the suit.
- 2 Whether the applicant has provided sufficient reasons for the delay in fixing the matter for hearing.
- 3 Whether the respondents would suffer prejudice if the interim orders are extended.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicant, through counsel, had taken all reasonable steps to fix the matter for hearing, but was impeded by a congested court diary. The court accepted the applicant's explanation for the delay and determined that there was no laxity or deliberate inaction. The court further held that the respondents would not suffer any prejudice if the interim orders were extended for a limited period. In the interest of justice and to preserve the status quo pending the hearing and determination of the main suit, the court exercised its discretion to extend the interim orders for a further 12 months. The extension was conditional upon the plaintiff's continued effort to have...
Court Disposition
Application allowed. Interim orders extended for 12 months from the date of ruling.
Orders
- The interim orders issued on 17th May 2011 are extended for a further 12 months from 4th July 2012, pending hearing and determination of the suit.
- The plaintiff must endeavor to have the suit fixed for hearing within the extended period.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
22 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT
AT NAIROBI
MILIMANI LAW COURTS
Environmental & Land Case 115 of 2011
BENARD MBALUKA NGULA ……..……………………..PLAINTIFF/APPLICANT
VERSUS
ZAHURA NJERI KURIA ……….…………..…..1ST DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
MUGO NJERU ………………………..……….2ND DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL ……………….……..3RD DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT
RULING
i.The plaintiff/applicant filed a Notice of Motion on the 14/5/12 seeking orders to have the interim orders issued on the 17th May 2011 extended until the determination of the suit. The grounds to support this application are stated on the face of the application. The application is also supported by the affidavit of Bernard Mbaluka Ngula. In it he explains that reasons why they failed to have the matter fixed for hearing. He explains that his counsel took all steps to expedite the hearing but the matter was not heard. Miss Nzilani in her oral submissions gave steps of what they did to fix the matter for hearing. The application was opposed by the respondents. The respondent filed grounds of opposition and their counsel made oral submission in Court.
I have carefully considered the submissions made in Court. The applicant has stated the steps he took through his counsel to fix the matter for hearing. His reasons are plausible bearing in mind that this that Court takes judicial notice of the fact that the Court diary was for sometime congested. The plaintiff has prepared the suit for hearing. I find that they have not been lax in the matter. I find that they have sufficiently demonstrated the hardship they had. I agree with Miss Nzilani that the respondent will not suffer any prejudice if orders that were granted are extended for a limited period. I do not agree with Counsel for the respondent that granting the extension of the orders given by the Court on the 17/5/11 would be in vain. The plaintiff/applicant moved to Court in good time to have the orders extended. In the interest of justice and so as to preserve the status quo pending hearing of the main suit I will extend the orders given on the 17/5/11 for a further 12 months from today. Pending the hearing and determination of the suit. The plaintiff must have endeavored to have the suit fixed for hearing in the period given.
Costs shall be in the cause.
Orders accordingly.
Dated, signed and delivered this 4th day of July 2012
R. OUGO
JUDGE
In the Presence of:-
…………………………………………..For the Applicant
…………………………………………… For the Respondents
…………………………………………… Court Clerk