[2024] KEELC 5319 (KLR)

[2024] KEELC 5319 (KLR)

The court found that the applicant's request for leave to appeal was properly before the court, as the ruling in question did not fall within the category of orders from which an appeal lies as of right under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application for leave was made within the prescribed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] KEELC 5319 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Kimaru Kiplangat Bongoi; Defendant: Christopher Kibet Barno; Defendant: Jackson Kiprotich Kemboi; Defendant: Uasin Gishu County Land Registrar
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Eldoret
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Case Number
Land Case E023 of 2023
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
application for leave to appeal allowed
Judges
EO Obaga
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Preliminary Objection, Res Judicata, Limitation of Actions, Injunctions, Land Disputes
Source Language
en
Civil Procedure Land and Property Leave to Appeal Preliminary Objection Res Judicata Limitation of Actions Injunctions Land Disputes

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kimaru Kiplangat Bongoi

Plaintiff

Christopher Kibet Barno

Defendant

Jackson Kiprotich Kemboi

Defendant

Uasin Gishu County Land Registrar

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion / Ruling on Application for Leave to Appeal

  1. 1 Whether the applicant requires leave of court to appeal against the ruling delivered on 29.2.2024.
  2. 2 Whether the application for leave to appeal was made within the prescribed time.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's request for leave to appeal was properly before the court, as the ruling in question did not fall within the category of orders from which an appeal lies as of right under Order 43 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The application for leave was made within the prescribed 14-day period following the ruling. The court recognized the applicant's right to seek a second opinion from a higher court and determined that there was no procedural bar to granting leave. Accordingly, the court allowed the application for leave to appeal in terms of the prayers sought in the motion.

Court Disposition

application for leave to appeal allowed

Orders

  • The applicant's application dated 1.3.2024 is allowed in terms of prayer 2 and 3 of the motion.