[2019] KEELC 3507 (KLR)
The court held that although it is permissible to conduct a scene visit at any stage of the proceedings, the responsibility lies with the parties to make such an application in a timely manner. In this case, no application for a scene visit was made during the 7 years the case was pending, and no plausible reasons...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] KEELC 3507 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Daniel Murungi Mwirabua Anampiu; Defendant: Jeremiah John alias Jeremia Guantai; Applicant: Interested Party
- Court
- Environment and Land Court
- Court Station
- Environment and Land Court at Meru
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- Environment & Land Case 225 of 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Land and Property Case / Post Hearing, Application for Scene Visit After Close of Evidence
- Outcome
- Application for scene visit disallowed.
- Legal Topics
- Scene Visit Application, Land Parcel Identification, Occupation of Land, Procedural Timeliness
- 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
Daniel Murungi Mwirabua Anampiu
Plaintiff
Jeremiah John alias Jeremia Guantai
Defendant
Interested Party
Applicant
Procedural Posture
Land and Property Case / Post Hearing, Application for Scene Visit After Close of Evidence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the court should grant an application for a scene visit after parties have closed their cases.
- 2 Whether sufficient reasons have been provided to justify a scene visit at this stage of proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that although it is permissible to conduct a scene visit at any stage of the proceedings, the responsibility lies with the parties to make such an application in a timely manner. In this case, no application for a scene visit was made during the 7 years the case was pending, and no plausible reasons were advanced for seeking a scene visit after the close of the parties' cases. Therefore, the application for a scene visit was disallowed.
Court Disposition
Application for scene visit disallowed.
Orders
- The application for a scene visit is disallowed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
21 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE ENVIRONMENT AND LAND COURT AT MERU
ELC CASE NO. 225 OF 2012
DANIEL MURUNGI MWIRABUA ANAMPIU.........................................PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
JEREMIAH JOHN alias JEREMIA GUANTAI ..................................DEFENDANT
RULING
1. The parties herein closed their case on 6. 3.2019. Thereafter, counsel for the interested party made an application for the court to visit the scene to establish the location of parcel’s No.’s 272, 106, and 281 and also to find out who is in occupation of the said parcels of land and for how long such parties have occupied the land.
2. The application was opposed by plaintiff’s counsel who averred that this is a 2012 case and for the last 7 years, none of the parties had ever indicated that the court should visit scene. Further, the court was urged to find that all parties have closed their cases.
3. Defence side was in support of the scene visit.
4. I have considered all the arguments raised herein. Whereas it is true that a scene visit can be conducted at any stage of the proceedings, the fact remains that a suit belongs to the parties.
5. For the last 7 years, no such application for a scene visit was ever made. No plausible reasons have been advanced as to why the need for a scene visit has arisen after parties have closed their cases.
6. I therefore disallow the application for the scene visit.
DATED, SIGNED AND DELIVERED IN OPEN COURT AT MERU THIS 8TH DAY OF MAY, 2019 IN THE PRESENCE OF:-
C/A: Kananu
Kithaka holding brief for Gichunge for interested party
C.P Mbaabu holding brief for Kiome for defendant
Mutegi for plaintiff
Plaintiff
HON. LUCY. N. MBUGUA
ELC JUDGE