[2018] KEELC 1673 (KLR)
The court held that the application to set aside the earlier order for written submissions was not merited. The issue of the mode of hearing had already been determined, and the applicants had been granted leave to file further affidavits but failed to comply with the court's directions. The court found no...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2018] KEELC 1673 (KLR)
- Parties
- Applicant: Charles Kiunga M’Mboroki (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of M’Kiunga M’Mbogori – deceased); Respondent: Meru University of Science and Technology; Respondent: National Museums of Kenya; Respondent: Land Adjudication Officer, Uringu 1 Adjudication Section; Respondent: Attorney General
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 22 of 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Directions for Written Submissions and Allow Oral Evidence
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs to respondents
- Legal Topics
- Setting Aside Orders, Mode of Hearing, Affidavit Evidence, Oral Evidence, Land Adjudication, Costs Award
- 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
Charles Kiunga M’Mboroki (Suing as the administrator of the Estate of M’Kiunga M’Mbogori – deceased)
Applicant
Meru University of Science and Technology
Respondent
National Museums of Kenya
Respondent
Land Adjudication Officer, Uringu 1 Adjudication Section
Respondent
Attorney General
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Constitutional Petition / Ruling on Application to Set Aside Directions for Written Submissions and Allow Oral Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should set aside its earlier order directing the matter to be heard by way of written submissions and instead allow oral evidence with cross-examination.
- 2 Whether the application to set aside the directions is merited given the procedural history and compliance with previous court orders.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application to set aside the earlier order for written submissions was not merited. The issue of the mode of hearing had already been determined, and the applicants had been granted leave to file further affidavits but failed to comply with the court's directions. The court found no compelling reason to revisit its earlier decision, especially given the delay and lack of compliance by the applicants. The application was therefore dismissed with costs to the respondents.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs to respondents
Orders
- The application dated 23.7.2018 is dismissed.
- Costs awarded to the respondents.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT
AT MERU
ELC PETITION NO. 22 OF 2013
CHARLES KIUNGA
M’MBOROKI(Suing as the administrator of the
Estate of M’Kiunga M’Mbogori – deceased)..................PETITIONER
VERSUS
MERU UNIVERSITY OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY........................1ST RESPONDENT
NATIONAL MUSEUMS OF KENYA................2ND RESPONDENT
LAND ADJUDICAITON OFFICER,
URINGU 1 ADJUDICATON SECTION.............3RD RESPONDENT
ATTORNEY GENERAL.......................................4TH RESPONDENT
RULING
1. This ruling is in respect of the application dated 23. 7.2018 whereby applicant/ petitioners are seeking for the setting aside of the orders given on 27. 6.2018 where the court directed that the matter be heard by way of written submissions.
2. Applicants desire that the case be heard by way of oral evidence whereby witnesses will be cross examined on their statements and documents filed.
3. I find that this application was made before Judge Njoroge (albeit orally) on 27. 6.2018. A ruling to that effect was given whereby it was ruled that “The petition is brought on the basis that certain provisions of the constitution have been violated. I believe that it is possible to demonstrate this by way of affidavit evidence and submissions”.
4. I am therefore in agreement with the respondent’s averments that the issue is spent.
5. It is also not lost to this court that after the ruling of the court on 27. 6.2018, counsel for applicant (petitioners) prayed for leave to introduce their documents by way of an affidavit. The court granted them their wish. The further affidavit of the petitioners was to be filed with submissions within 30 days. The applicants did not comply with these directions. Instead they have resulted to filing the present application four and a half years since the time of filing of this suit (on November 2013).
6. I find that the application is not merited. The same is dismissed with costs to respondents.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS DAY OF 4TH OCTOBER, 2018
IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C/A: Janet/Galgalo
Kiogora holding brief for C.P Mbaabu for petitioners
Nyamu Nyaga for 1st respondent
Marete for 2nd respondent
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE